Articles on Avanceé.Agency

Uncovering Capability Architecture

Sat, 16 May 2026 00:49:35 -0400

Borrowing and extending from a few chats w/LLMs…

…am liking a direction my recent work has been going: interpretive anchors around concepts like: invitation-based systems, contextual computing, trust surfaces, and human-centered operations

It might sound a bit “deep,” or “complicated” here. But truth is, I’ve pushed away from stages like LinkedIn to orchestrate a more durable way forward. That’s meant building a new (to me) identity framework. That’s meant a credential branch for LLMs/agents to work with that’s prescribe to how id like to be engaged, not how to extract from my signals something else.

I’ve been scheming/designing for an identity-aware context that doesn’t quite exist yet (but Google kind of points to it coming). I’ve been designing a canvas for my incoming Brilliant Labs Halo glasses and current Frame glasses which is even differentiated from what Meta recently published for their MRB Display glasses platform…

…I am not saying that some of the directions noted in those and other pieces don’t matter. I see and am approaching the evolution in software, services, and product in a manner that fits enabling humane capabilities more than it does system engineering.

And honestly, being a capability architect resonates way more with what I do, what I want to do, and what I leave behind than much else. For those who are geared in this direction, it’s been quite a journey to find this kind of clarity.

Next, finding the folks who need their capabilities unlocked when systems, people, and technology are no longer cohering… or being more discoverable to those folks, will be the better test of this direction and focus.

Thinking Spaces

Mon, 30 Mar 2026 07:00:00 -0400

Over the past weeks, I’ve been finding something of a flow with some new experiments. Between LLMs and Muse, I’ve been pushing the canvas a bit more into the cognitive-augmented spaces. In doing so, it’s causing insights to begin peeking out of the ground. The latest of these exposed in paraphrasing a comment during the previous week’s notable reads:

I use devices as thinking surfaces—places to temporarily hold and shape thoughts so I don’t have to carry everything in my head while working.

As pointed out so neatly in one of the LLM conversations, most people treat devices as:

destinations (apps you go into)
systems of record (CRMs, notes, forms)
interfaces to complete tasks

I treat them as extensions of a cognitive canvas. And as this different category, am often coming across usages, behaviors, and insights which are found more along the lines of “revelations.”

In an engagement predating Avanceé, I worked for a community-fitness organization in a managerial role. The company was in the midst of several personnel and operational transitions, and I got to be a part of the process, almost accidentally. From implementing a team blog, to creating digital forms to replace carbon paper forms, to even remapping a few governance processes, I was able to deftly integrate my cognitive processes once I figured out how to improve my own information fidelity, then expand that to various enhancements others could utilize.

This started when asking “why.” Why couldn’t we use a tablet to interface with people on the floor? Why wouldn’t we use a checklist to improve visitor experience? Why not use asynchronous messaging versus a print binder and inconsistent accountability. And then from those questions were short, approachable personal experiments, often kept very quiet until they tested well. Then they were expanded bit by bit, allowing for critique and form to reshape as necessary. Some items found scale quickly, and I pivoted from researcher to trainer/implementer. A few failed marvelously. A few lingered for many years after I left… often unchanged.

Exploring meant developing a means to figure out how to extend cognitive processes such that me/someone is temporarily super-powered. We went from “wait, let me look that up for you” all the way to, “here’s how you can…” with a audit trail, feedback loop, and even nearer-to-realtime changes. Taking a decision and enabling someone to perceive it differently caused a different kind of output. In the case of the aforementioned org, the output became measured in community engagement, realistic fitness goals, and professional development paths more aligned with the capacity and capability of the organization.

Most tools are designed around: input → process → output My work flows differently: perception → capture → reflect → decide

This is what makes one of the recent experiments so exciting. There’s this shape of “ok, here’s something which needs a layer of contemplation which has to happen differently, can you offload the harder part and come back to it?” And so I’m looking at the Brilliant Lab Frame glasses, Microsoft Duo, and a web app like “yea, we can figure out something.”

That middle space—between perception and decision—is where the bulk of work lived. It’s a different category in several facets. And one where the stories knit a deeper thread than simply “things to get done.” This is why Muse factors here so heavily. This is why we grapple less with “here’s a framework” and more with “we aren’t tech support.” If you can be empowered to extend your capabilities, then what you might be reaching for doesn’t just become attainable, but also embeds itself into the very fabric of your reason for being.

Could we do the same for you? Probably. There’s a more realistic answer though in that we are probably more equipped to help you discover the same cognitive canvas, and then help you sharpen your use of the tools you know in order to make that superpower more apparent and utilized by you.

Why Organizations Don’t Need More Strategy — They Need Structural Integrity

Tue, 17 Mar 2026 07:00:00 -0400

It has been a a good while since doing a decent editorial, and part of that has been a good bit of tension between the work I’ve been wanting to do, and the work I’ve been seeing as needed. In a sense, I see many organizations not so much as need a technologist or help with their strategy as much as I’m seeing a disconnect with the structures which are supposed to be upholding that strategy.

My most effective engagements have been with organizations who have had a strategy problem covering and integrity problem. For example, with one group, was were brought in to confirm a technical roadmap, but what was found was a disconnect between behaviors and expectations in some key processes. Using a series of data models and service blueprints, we (myself and the small team that was put together) discovered the gaps, proposed a few attainable solutions, and even added the technical landscape they could utilize across that mapping. So whether they decide to go with a new platform or not, they were empowered and engaged for success.

In that engagement, and most others, there’s a usual pattern which unveils itself: strategy illusion, structural integrity, where the integrity breaks, and then an expression of the actual need.

The strategy illusion manifests itself within a misalignment drift. Somewhere between governance, operational flows, or decision authority, there’s this impetuous towards “we have to do a thing.” Consultants are hired, software is deployed, and/or new initiatives are announced with nothing more than a “we have to get it done” blanket thrown with it. When I am engaged, one of the first things I’m asking is “as a result of this strategy, what’s the outcome that’s certain, and the known ripples to what those outcomes will effect?”

That question/conversation unveils the structural integrity that exists (or not) under those efforts. Going back to the effective engagement spoken of earlier, there was financial costs and political decision alignments at play. The person making the decision to go for this research sprint was very much matched with the responsibility of the outcomes called for. The operational systems didn’t meet their expectations for the current state, and could therefore not do so for the future state. My work had to affirm those expectations, and call out where their strategic goals might be aligned (or not) with the capacity of the team and tooling.

In the throes of doing the analyst work, the were three patterns which revealed themselves. First, there was a subversion of authority. While the system’s actors could very much tune themselves to the desired outputs, they didn’t trust the system they put in place to ensure it. Digging deeper into some of the veteran actors, it was made clear that the last system update didn’t take their tempo of work into account; and so systems were added on systems, without hard boundaries for what wasn’t allowable. In fact, holding onto one of the platforms revealed significant PII (personally identifiable information) issues.

Second, none of the information being rolled up to leadership or decision makers was happening in realtime. This team literally had a “we will print this out, sign it, then scan it back in before sending it upward” philosophy. This was also due in part of a slow performing software platform. They saw no reason to use or learn to use lighter notification services for lower bandwidth notifications. And therefore, much of the “what’s the update on…” conversations had to happen in high-bandwidth meetings, which further slowed the rate of work.

Lastly, there was little in the way of incentives for processing faster. In fact, in order for one of the actors to process their work faster, the leadership would have to move to a parallel workflow which would have exposed the slower speed of getting relevant information. Therefore, one of the tactics we used during interviewing was to ask, “what would it look like to gain back 10-15 minutes each hour on processing this part of your work?” The answers ranged from stress reductions to being able to “go to their real work.” Incentives don’t always need to be extra, sometimes, it is simply alignment.

When I go in (as Avancee) to organizations, I’m listening for these four areas (strategy illusion, structural integrity, where the integrity breaks, and then an expression of the actual need). Strategy without structural integrity is a lot like putting an bandaid on a gunshot wound. Yes, you are acknowledging the loss of blood, but there’s something deeper which will cause catastrophic damage if not addressed. This isn’t to say that strategy isn’t important. But, strategy without structural integrity is unstable.

If you are looking at the physics of your organization and can use a systems-level approach to address structural issues, get in touch and let’s discuss how you can advance forward.

Musing on Embedded Leverage

Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:45:00 -0400

Last week was decision architecture. This week, “Embedded leverage.”

When trying to ascertain what it is that this initiative can offer to anyone, there are a few phrases that we used to kind of get people to understand what it is they may need/what it is we might be able to do for them:

Executive architect
Strategic program catalyst
Internal transformation lead with executive access
Special projects operator reporting high in the org

None of these are particularly glamorous. And in many cases, these don’t fit nicely into a job posting or even a marking deck when someone in middle management comes up with “tactics for our eventual success.“ But, in conversations with decision-makers and other persons who circle around or through organizational inflection points, these are a few of the terms which linger.

These terms invite a very specific ask: that of a person or group having embedded leverage. But there is some kind of mandate to which they will be doing something for some amount of time for some specific goal. Or, they will be just dating on the ambiguity of a thing in order to give shape to it so that the executive stakeholder can better articulate the strategic imperative. This is a liminal space it’s a tension-filled space. But, it’s an unshaped space.

We’re trying to get around the idea of architecting better decisions, this is an effect what we are asking for an organizational lead to consider. If, they would like to have this service to be a part of their transformation story, what kind of embedded leverage would be allowed or empowered? And then what are the limits to this leverage? Are there better decisions to be made? Are their milestones that revealed themselves in the organization that might not be so conductive to someone who has 1 foot in and 1 foot out? Is the organization actually at an inflection point, or is the person who is making the request at the inflection point and they are misconstruing their inflection point for that of the organization?

Towards this last point, this actually speaks to one of our engagements where we did a bit of executive coaching, and it was uncovered that the chief executive was actually trying to position change, but he was probably the one Most in need of doing the change. In his case, he ended up retiring, but not before elevating a type of clarity to the rest of the organization to the mission envision that they had subscribed to. We operated with 1 foot in the organization coaching to the executive, and serving as a sounding board to the executive team. And with the other foot outside of the organization, looking at the artifacts and the ripples from the things that the internal team said were the “business of the organization.“ We came in with one mindset as to the type of change they needed, but it ended up being revealed that the decisions to be made needed to happen with people who were not in the room (yet).

Embedded leverage is not a “forever“ posture. It’s something that exists for a time, and with some kind of cap to the resources that it pulls from others and the impact that it needs to serve. However, when leveraged well, this posture creates an impetus for a better type of mandate for the organization. Generally speaking one in which things are clearer, more performant, and likely more palatable to the desired outcomes.

Using LLMs to Create Reusable Content

Wed, 25 Feb 2026 07:30:00 -0400

Tactful AI/LLM use is what I’m hoping for…

Was sitting here looking at a few older emails, and there’s one of a bike shop owner asking if there was a flyer which has a bit about the state’s laws on e-bikes, helmet use, and general cycling law. Yes, there’s what BikeAAA (Bicycle Advocates for Annapolis and Anne Arundel County did, but nothing larger in scope or a bit easier to grasp. So I took a few URLs which note existing law/statutes and BikeAAA’s image, then had Gemini/Nano Banana create something…

…two prompts in and it was solid, not great. Just solid. A bit of manual editing on my part and it’s a solid enough base/template. Am skilled enough to do similar by hand? Yup. Sketching isn’t hard, just not as polished w/o some extra apps not on my devices. This was a speed run w/Gemini to investigate a few things we are evaluating with Bike Maryland internally.

In essence, I got to a really decent “template” in going this route. Not quite shareable. Not quite polished. Just a template which could be branded (by a bike shop or advocacy org). Or even left “dirty draft” such that those bike shops, other advocacy groups, etc. could extend on it (with licensing and instructions in place).

Is it perfect, nope. Does it come across as “slop?” Not to my media discernment. It is draft-level at worst. It is usable, and takes a bit of heavy lifting off the shoulders of board members or board committees. So, there’s probably a place for a workflow where AI/LLMs help elevate the quality of work, or the ability to get to more appropriate decision points faster. And after that, the “humans in the loop” make the rest of the journey. Sounds like gears on a bike if you wanna think of it that way, doesn’t it? Heh… off I go investigating some more.

Oh, and if you were wondering about bike/eBike laws in MD, the attached flyer isn’t a bad place to start.

Musing on Decision Architecture and Misalignment

Mon, 23 Feb 2026 12:10:30 -0400

One of the ripples which came out of the sales summit we attended last week was a distinct sense of being a bit ill-fitted for the occasion. Don’t get me wrong, there’s def some better sales activities which needs to happen - and this was a great venue to understand what types of things folks might be listening for. But, what I came away most with is a lack of a means of moving from “operator” aspects to “architectural” ones.

What I mean comes somewhat to what it is Avancee has been . This initiative has been something like a distinct service of “decision architecture” to the folks we’ve best engaged. We aren’t tech support, but are helping small/medium businesses figure out what it might mean to understand the entire graph of decisions relating to their operations or products/services. Whereas the usual sales activity is “get another conversation,” we have been doing more of “can we get you to a better decision (whether that is with us or not).”

That’s a bit of a mismatch for the current market. Such is better when there is less voltilaty in markets and regions. When folks are trying to stay the course, we are asking them “do you have the right course in mid” and that’s a bit off.. Going back to the piece on scope, strategy, and tactics, we were correct, but misaligned with where sufficient stakeholders wanted to be.

What’s most funny/insightful is that even the use of an open blogging platform and a contemplatve-focused whiteboard app points to the misalignment here. We’ve been likely speaking to the wrong audiences, even while gaining perspective to the needs to other layers. “All of this is great and you truly get it, but how does it make money for me,“comes out more often than we’d like to admit. And even with plugging away, being consistent with sharing the threads, themes, and memes… we aren’t exacly burning a hole in the markets. Misaligned…

…That’s the biggest of the takeaways from last week. The “solution” to a sales person being misaligned had been presented as “use AI” and “more conversations.” It didn’t tell anyone how to assess their scaffolding, nor why using AI might be helpful and perilous at the same time. There wasn’t an acknowledgment of risk in “sales going away,” because the summit was postured as the reason why human-driven sales strategies must persist.

I came away from this questioning alignment. It might speak a lot louder that the decision archetype for misalignment wasn’t something a summit could sell.

Reflecting on HTML As A Canvas

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 01:05:32 -0400

For as long as my “internet brain remembers,” I’ve always had some kind of weird web projects happening. Weirdly, or maybe per my nature, it’s usually been about pushing HTML use in ways which make sense eventually, but are hard to explain while crafting…

…when I swapped life from a Dell laptop to a Palm Treo & keyboard, it was HTML docs because “Office docs” were cumbersome, slow, and ultimately got converted to web formats anyways.

…on the Nokia N75, N95 NAM, and N97 it was the mobile web server and the shape of federated info. I could squeeze the viewport to do some neat things via python, while also learning how the very backend parts of the internet worked and were pulled far out of my control.

…there were wikis, SVG play, and HTML docs before and after the HTML5 draft spec. I’m no expert or anything; I just have routes and decide to slow play a lot. It made for a neat window and cabinet for many hyperlinked things. Probably influencing the bits about Muse you see here more than anything else.

The most recent projects have been around a personal identity portal and a “handshake” kinda business card. I’m liking the concept and the play. And with the parts of LLMs which are solid, I like the help and feedback to what’s being iterated upon. The result has been this canvas which augments connections, versus advertising them.

To me… HTML has always been a canvas. Perhaps this cannot be how the majority of folks “use” the web. But for some of us, this expressed connectivity just might be a canvas to obscure ideas which might amount to nothing much at all… or amount to a branch that changes the trajectory of several realities.

Given the other experiments on deck, I wonder how this canvas will evolve for me once more 🥸

Bots vs Scribbles

Tue, 27 Jan 2026 11:33:03 -0400

Am composing this on macOS with a wireless keyboard. Mainly because it’s a tick closer to me than the iPad and Pencil. I prefer the latter. There, in between the scribbles, is the space where synthesis meets thinking meetings “ah, yea, we don’t wanna go that way.” On the other hand, typing is more direct. You type, there might be some autocorrect, there might be some more typing, and then you delete… its very linear.. very direct. Rigid.

The excitement about bots and AI seems to follow the latter more than the former. And truth be told, if there were a way to discern my scribbles and connect new paths between them, then we’d not need to listen to much about “AI taking over the world” at all….

….we’d be in our notepads, scribbling threads rarely imagined, mostly nonverbal, and largely conversational with the unconscious self. Contemplative doesn’t get as much shine. It should.

Seeing Concepts More Clearly

Thu, 22 Jan 2026 13:30:45 -0400

Back in 2018, shared a thought about a dynamic-changing lens. This led into acquiring the Brilliant Labs Frame glasses for a long-running experiment.

Well look at what IXI is demoing! Very awesome.

Learn more at the IXI Eyewear website

Avanceé Reads for 9 Jan 26 🔗

Fri, 09 Jan 2026 11:23:04 -0400

Perhaps…

No, more like “must move forward. There can be no change until people have sufficient confidence that what is now should no longer be. At some point, beyond the “this is the fated end” part, there’s going to have to be something built differently and better. Until then, this reckoning isn’t easy.

Also published:

*reuploaded board from initial post 🤦🏾‍♂️

Frameworks: Progressions

Tue, 06 Jan 2026 14:01:54 -0400

This ought to be a series of posts around “frameworks” or such, but have no clue how long the energy will last for this. So let’s just take this one as it comes.

Over the course of working for and with many companies, the idea that people should want to stick around is something many folks find challenging and yet… normal. Those who have ownership of executing or managing the overall vision have a vested interest in sticking around. While those who are tasked with doing/implementing the work find their voices a bit less heard for strategic things until some reputational crest is met.

Many moons before Avancee, I explored this ladder in a series of talks shared across a few groups loosely called Beyond the Portfolio. The goal was to get some alignment along those who were evaluating skills for company recruitment, those who had teams evolving in skills/experience, and those folks on a path but not quite sure where they might end up. The series landed decent, but the framework which came from it was more valuable.

Many orgs have a single career progression track. Very simplified, it looks like:

Doer > Leader > Manager > Director > Executive

Reframed, that flow looks like

Task doer > Task shaper > Task Manager > Task Director > Tactic Director > Strategic Declaration

Such a single track leaves little room for those who might have little want/desire to manage, lead, craft, or even direct. There’s even the concept of the Peter principle which explains how folks who might have benefited from proficient in one of these stages, gets promoted into a higher one where they express incompetence as the effort, more than they would expertise.

My ninnovatio with and after Beyond the Portfolio was to recognize that many knowledge management paths actually had a branch. First a major branch which began to manifest in the “Leader” phase, and found voice at or right before the “Manager” phase. I called this “do you want to go into management, or become an expert in some particular aspect?” This meant mapping whole fields, assumed standards, and even disregarding conventions such as degrees and certifications. Wanted to see the routes without the weights…

This became a reference guide called “Methods, Tools, Deliverables, and Resources.” A collection of methods and tools, mapped to their assumed deliverables by role and expectation, and further mapped to resources found from a diverse body of sources. That mapping (eh framework) was used to (a) craft a redesigned hiring-onboarding workflow, forward an Agile implementation’s staff maturity and execution pipeline, reframe the sales-proposal processes for a few consultant companies, and even anchor an executive strategic shift for a small business who evolved into a new market segment.

Independent contributors greatly win with this perspective also. They get off-ramps which allow them to adjust to market conditions and professional development at the speed of their curiosity - not the market. Adept directors and leadership can steer tactics ahead of risk and market disruption, while enhancing their “will to survive” professionally also.

That leaves you… do you have a framework like ”Methods-Tools-Deliverables-Resources” to anchor progressions? Do you need help crafting one? Get in touch and let’s move forward.

Update: Looks like we weren’t the only to have this topic on deck today. See @ben@werd.social’s post here.

Hopeful Breakthroughs in Wearables & Connected Tech

Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:00:00 -0400

Am a part of the Brilliant Labs Discord and occasionally there’s some neat branches hitting discussions. Wanting to preserve a recent exchange, am posting it here (aka, POSSE). This is how we make connectivity work towards our imaginations…

As usual, hit up our usual channels if you’ve got comments.

Brilliant Labs: Happy New Year to everyone in the community 🎉 As we step into a year where smart glasses, AI, and wearable tech are moving from novelty to everyday tools, what developments or breakthroughs are you most excited (or hopeful) to see in smart glasses, AI glasses, or wearables in general?

Well, since you asked and I’m just walking around a park and peeking in on things…

…interoperability between wearables and non-mobile/PC devices such as cycling computers, stand alone GPS devices, and even kiosks (similar to how accessibility devices tap into interfaces, just optional with the physical connection though).

…moving beyond indirect input devices for smaller interactions and seeing more use of multi-finger gestures.

…and pushing a tick harder into the types of integrations which can be done and audited by folks with limited programming knowledge. But, not to diminish programming, but to make it more valuable, risk tolerant, and in its craftsmanship to go back to being minimal with efficiency, not just “libraries of possibilities.”

BL: I like what you said about making integrations more accessible without losing craftsmanship. What do you think is the biggest thing holding that back right now?

What do I think are the biggest issues holding back craftsmanship… At least in regards to accessible integration?

Some of that has to do with mental models. Not all folks “think as a programmer” or “analyst” such to be able to bend tooling. A part of what some proponents of “vibe coding” tend to miss is simply that they think differently. So sharing “how one thinks” could be better than showing “how I get the thing I’m thinking about.”

Script and app sizes are too large IMO. Granted, much of this is me saying “ the abstraction layer on top of the abstraction layer on top of…“ Is not efficient enough. I don’t think we all need to be writing assembly… But it would be wonderful if the Renaissance in software craftsmanship did get us back to languages/methods which meet closer to assembly. Not sure how to do that in English though… It’s such a weird language. Mandarin, actually seems well suited to such things. As does Arabic.

Weirdly, I think the emphasis in “storytelling“ might actually hold this back. Much like people talk about “analog reading forces you to imagine the scenes the author wrote“ I think that some of our storytelling today replaces the imagination. And so if there were a way to invite imagination to be more part of an integration, that means a SDK’s functionality inviting imagination into the very thread of what’s being developed, then there could probably be some marvelous things that happen at the intersection of an individuals imagination and our collective want to use a tool/platform.

————————

Well, that’s where thinking landed not too long after the new year started. What about you? What kind of developments or breakthroughs are you excited or hopeful to see/here/sense with thee connected devices? Comment via your platform of choice and make sure to tv us so we can grow from the exchange.

A Capacity to Dig, Wrench, and Fill

Tue, 16 Dec 2025 15:01:01 -0400

The end of the year is an interesting time of reflection and such. Where I might bend Avanceé to do similar - and share such a summary in the coming weeks - there’s often just a bit more lurking under the surface of these types of things: namely, what are you actually thinking about.

For example, there was an excellent writeup of a company moving on from their content management system provider to something a bit more custom, brokered by using an LLM to figure out the gaps and code/craft the implementation points. A lot about this post is really good to understand from the perspective of enterprise content management on the side of development, but what’s the actual takeaway for those who might not be in as large an org, or who have different constraints?

Let me pull from one our longer running experiments with the Brilliant Labs Framework glasses…

When there is a capacity to be curious, you have a decision. Either you call the curiosity a blocker, and find detours around it. Or, you find curiosity is a shovel and look to find ways to dig, wrench, and fill hole shaped imaginations. For Avanceé, this experiment has opened the door to a type of learning about machine learning and artificial intelligence which doesn’t quite fit the narrative of many. We aren’t driving towards a credentialed approach which might be repeatable or irrelevant over a few years. We are also not quite skilled enough to unleash software/services which might turn your unfocused/haphazard behaviors into something more diligent, focused, and probably profitable.

Avancee exists to help persons figure out what their next steps might be. And the shape of this manifests in a kind of mentoring or coaching towards outcomes very much measured not be the cadence of a publishing cycle, but by the skillful, ethical, creative, or insightful application of tooling and behaviors for critical outcomes. So when we share a summary of what we’ve been up to, it’s to get you to understand the shape of your own capacity to dig, wrench, and craft your desired present (not future).

When we go back to that post about how Cursor moved away from their content management platform, we can now see it for what it really is: an exposition on curiosity which turned into experimentation, which turned into insightful application. And even if there are things missing in such a perspective (as talked about by a person from their former content management vendor), you can be rest assured that the foundation of what you might be digging wonder be easily swayed by the swings of a fad, the fortunes of its sponsors, or even those folks crafting narratives which might never be repeated other than in academic journals.

Echos of Magic Wand

Thu, 11 Dec 2025 08:00:00 -0400

Years ago, when looking for new markets to explore, a friend presented a problem with his dealings with e-commerce administration and the resulting logistical, inventory, and the advertising activities. This was at time I was trying to figure out a number of things, some of which eventually became Avanceé. Came up with a really solid concept, and even partnered with some folks to find investors. But sadly, nothing happened of Magic Wand.

Ended up spotting echoes of that work within some recent announcements from Shopify (the Operations section specifically).

There’s echoes of Magic Wand in some of what’s been posted here (this, this, and this for example). But nothing really captured what was ahead of its time in terms of a means to augment one’s ability to run a business with an agent that extends you.

Neat to see the past coming forward, even if it’s not coming from the work of my canvas.

Been a while since putting up a concept/imagination like Magic Wand. Perhaps, it’s time again.

Repair Assistants As the Better Wearable Acceptance Route

Wed, 10 Dec 2025 11:45:12 -0400

Between the newly announced iFixIt Bot and this inventive use case of a HUD for assembling IKEA products, one could imagine a nearly interesting scenario where a wearable/interface which provokes one to be less wasteful being a easier route for this tech’s acceptance than the translation, media consumption, and notification triage routes.

A problem with wearables, for the non-techie, is that they don’t seem to solve a low-enough hanging fruit. Sure, being a memory aide is not a problem. But, folks would like to think they are less forgetful than they are (until forgetfulness becomes a more prominent characteristic of age/ability). Some would like to believe they are skillful conductors of parts of their workflow, but neglect other governance/regulations which might be the larger boxes in which they play. So, augmenting against an achievable, controllable state of maturity can point to something a bit harder to pull off, but much more accessible.

Thing is, and the iFixIt Bot post explains this nicely, going the route of “make it mature and accessible” isn’t a small thing. It’s digging to the characteristic of “original” inside of a larger cake of innovation. And then when it hits that accessible, usable, and “can’t live without it but it’s not exactly desirable” layer, one is convinced of its value and utility without much more of a narrative. Going from “part of the production” to “desired program asset” is where many want wearables to go, but there’s still too much in the way of “setup the ideal scenarios” for what amounts to “not enough value.”

But assembly and fix-it materials? Oh that could do it. Add the layer of economic and political pressures to not just do more with less, but understand how to make the appropriate substitutions… it’s not just that folks “might” wear that. They might even fix the world around them… themselves.

Credits, Credentials, and Certificates

Mon, 08 Dec 2025 17:06:28 -0400

One of the consistent conversations this year has been aronud the value of “AI certifications.” Let’s be straight, we aren’t fans of certifications for most of these efforts. There is largely no insurance-type or union-type organization behind many of these, nor the history which backs the reputation a traditional certification would infer. And yet, they are here, so how do we navigate certifications? Should they be given credit for something/anything? Or, are the credentials something yet to be built, and the certification points to the building blocks of a reputation which can be built?

Sparked by seeing a few folks talk recently about certifications earned on LinkedIn, there’s indeed some virtue signaling happening. Folks are making a declaration that they stayed thru someone’s curriculm and developed some type of understanding. Give them credit for this? In your circle of friends and associates, sure. But, getting beyond 2nd degree connections, does this matter? What should this credit equal? Is it more about making the acquirer visible for other opportunities or a closer (professional) connection? What happens when that credential is no longer as valuable because of vertical, market, industrial, or even cultural shifts? Does the credit matter for more than just what was inferred? Why?

Or maybe we talk about these certifications as the proof of something yet to be built. The person who applied themselves for this certificate is making a declaration they now have the foundations to build something reputable. And this kind of makes sense for some certifications, a security COMP-TIA doesn’t mean you’ve secured a system already, but that when it comes time for it to be tested/attacked, that you can add to the resiliency of it. To this end, the certification is merely a credential until its applied. It’s not worth much more than a checkbox until it is tested, validated, and the outcomes verified well outside of the acquirer (or issuer).

Told a friend to look into making badges/certifications for a service they offer thru this service. There’s been a consistent shape of persons who utilzie their services w/o wanting to do much. And then there’s a few who take their platform and grow themselves and their businesses in a more self-directed method. To this end, the credential their service would offer could do the part of ensuring a quality of service that a larger company might have an academic body in the place of validating. This smaller service would also gain the reputational boost that “hey, I got credit for learning this thing I’m paying you for” which is a achievement metric from our youth. Credit conferring more than applause from an unknown audience, but now being an internal appreciation of achievement, resiliency, or more.

What say you? Are certificates all they seem to be, or have you come out of this looking at this credit or credential differently?

Replacing Wipers and Wearable Tech Characteristics

Mon, 24 Nov 2025 13:36:20 -0400

Had this moment earlier today when I was replacing auto wiper blades and had the “would it be cool if my glasses could point to me the steps and the {hidden} button to get these off and the new ones on there?”

The replacement blades had a QR code on there, obviously pointing to the reality of one carrying a camera-equipped, internet-connected mobile. But, isn’t this where connected glasses are supposed to be a better use case? A “take a look at this context and give me info that’s specific enough, but not given all at one time” framing.

These are the moments where we can see that some of what we’ve done for connected behaviors might be ripe for some of what a connected wearable offers. Whether its grabbing the mobile when reading a book to look up something more specific, or using the “enhanced viewing” option in movies/sports to derive more insight to a character, placement, or artifact, or something else. There’s this impending cliff for just a few, not-as-often thing, where something about wearables makes a lot of sense.

Back in a previous career, seven characteristics of mobile by Tomi T Ahonen gave language to a few extremely distinct opportunities to shape what made “mobile” different from PC (“productivity computer”). I was able to use that iron to sharpen what it meant to graft mobile into theological spaces, helping many folks see use cases which made sense for mobile while not completely disregarding the usefulness of older toosl/media methods.

I almost wonder if similar is needed for wearables? And if so, how will some of those characteristics point towards augmenting the parts of being humane which really do make for better lives? I mean, wouldn’t it be great if we didn’t just have an indicator letting us know that the way we see the world needs a new set of wipers. But, we had a means of putting on those new wipers at the pace, tone, language, and security that met us right where we are?

Who Should Own the AI in Your Org

Mon, 27 Oct 2025 12:05:18 -0400

Am just getting out of a excellent networking chat and was presented with probably the most fun question to date about artificial intelligence (AI) in orgs: who should own the AI in the org?

It is such a marvelous question because there such nuance to the answer. Many people see an entire service like Perplexity or ChatGPT and think that’s what meant. Others see the data which trains models as the same as the systems (agents, workflows, etc) built on top of them as the answer. And then there are a few who see the outputs (the decisions made as a result of applying model(s) to a thing) as the basis for answering. Here’s a snippet of how we responded to that question.

If an org has the capacity to assume, build, or deploy a service or product, they should have a constantly updated data model and system model diagram/map to what they are doing. They should have a clear understanding of the inputs and outputs, and in the case of services the off-ramps, for what they offer. It might take a service designer to map this initially, but it needs to be done before and while a product/service evolves. Before applying any another model or framework, one needs to know their own.

After this, an org needs to be clear about accountability to the decisions they make and enable their employees to make. Having a solid risk model or modeling software is where this lands. If the company governance doesn’t account for the agency of people to make decisions to respond to real-time or delayed issues against that system model/data model, then no amount of “add AI to it” will make things better. In fact, it will make things much, much worse.

Last part of our response was to have some clear process of learning, assimilating, and deploying LLM/AI. This can (should) start on the level of a practice; brining interested persons together to share experiments and observations. If things need a budget, look at taking that practice and making a time-boxed initiative from it. Time and finance boundaries are key here. Figure out the specific things you want to learn, and be “ok” with much of this being throw-away work. If there’s a jump from this initiative, it becomes a feature-mission of the org, also time-bound, but with specific execution requirements and executive accountability. And if that goes well, it becomes part of the character/DNA of the org. Each of these steps allows for some level of learning, adopting, and even “being wrong.” But if done in this manner, you’d have clarity at worst, and a resilient org at best.

So, who owns the AI in your org? Or, does AI own your org because your org is owned by the trends of the age, versus their product/service mission? Might be worth chatting with folks who can help you thru such things ;-)

Paying Attention to LLM (AI) Gaps

Wed, 22 Oct 2025 10:47:20 -0400

“So what’s been going on here,” you might ask. Having missed our weekly roundup (don’t worry, it’s back in a few days), there’s a bit of fun which we’ve been paying attention to in respect to “advancing tech operations.” One of those has been the continued push and usefulness of LLMs for smaller tasks. Not specifically the agentic stuff you might have been reading about, but smaller, focused items which augment our thinking and processing abilities.

That said, there’s a downside to this as well which is worth paying attention to, and that would be the nefarious uses. Prompt injection attacks have come back into play (for those in the early 2000s who remember things like this with Excel, welcome back). The folks at Brave posted some important findings about how some of these browsers aren’t protecting themselves or their users from this. And its not so much eye-opening, as much as it is makes you aware that advancements also have consequences.

Some of us have used this adversarial tactic for their own advantage (for example, putting code, comments, etc. into one’s resume or social media profiles to “fool” the LLM). And it makes sense to offer offensive abilities to what usually can be postured as negative. But, as in all things moving forward, you cannnot just take a step forward without looking where you are stepping. And with LLMs, this is very, very important. Not every advanced use will end up advancing you.

On AI Tools and Focus

Wed, 24 Sep 2025 16:46:58 -0400

One of the tools talked about during this month’s Sales Effectiveness Roundtable (Central Maryland Chamber) was the use of AI/LLMs to do some of the work of qualifying connections and business research. And while doing a “search” is normative, it’s more impressive when you can dive into analysis models which go a bit deeper to focus contexts for connections.

One of the tools (when am on the Avanceé Agency R&D device) is a web browser called Dia (The Browser Company, Atlassian). With this browser, you can use the LLM chat interface to do some neat things - called skills - to expand browsing to an artifact more than simply searching, connecting, and collecting. I use a skill called Graham to do something of a character analysis (based on LinkedIn and other info) and to analyze for fit and purpose. It’s neat, and shows a way forward to how your tools can make sales and business development operations work with less friction.

Here’s drop my referral link for Dia here in case you’d like to play on MacOS devices, sorry no mobile or Windows just yet. And there’s only 5 of these, so first come first grab.

Another recently used tool is Airtable. Especially with its ability to take some relatively adjacent data points and then create databases/tables out of them so that visualizations and agent based activity can be initialized fairly quickly. The AI/LLM feature is even so polished that one can do like with Claude, Replit, and others and prototype interfaces as smoothly as you can prompt, test, and tweak.

In the meantime, consider checking out the Sales Effectiveness Roundtable and other affinity groups with the Central Maryland Chamber. Upgrading your ability to be successful might be as straightforward as making a focused connection here.

Thoughts About Meta Connect’s 👓 Product Announcements

Thu, 18 Sep 2025 07:45:34 -0400

Shared this on a few other spaces, so it made sense to also note here. Pasted without much of an edit.

excellent updates to the Meta-RayBans from a specs end. These have been a sneaky buy for many.
the two Oakley models are solid. The HSTN remind me of the exact use case my Snap Spectacles have served for years
the Oakley Meta Vanguard will make some run/hike/bike shops step up their game in terms of selling connected 👓 and the Garmin/Strava integration is 🤌🏽
I’d love to see bike computer head units connect directly to the Vanguard 👓
The Meta RayBan Display 👓 def stole the show. At their $800 price and Sept 30th availability, I’d expect quite a few folks cosplaying “Sayans with scouters” by Halloween. The use of transition lenses by default mirrors my usual 👓 and also how I speced my Brilliant Labs Frame 👓 (and the upcoming Halo)
the EMG wristband to control the Display 👓 is slick. Looks easy to learn, and is almost invisible tech. Def makes me long for similar with my TapXR ⌨️
the “agentic AI” video was well done. Reminded me too much of how I desired to use the Humane AiPin (and how I hope folks are using Rabbit R1 now with RabbitOS2). Makes sense, even if there’s some potential “dread” to what admin behaviors folks need to add to their daily
failed demos, nah… yea things didn’t work, but overall this was either going to be not polished enough, or too polished. The errors in presenting lend some validity to the approach. Now, there’s some software tweaks def needed, and I saw quite a few 🫤 bits, but what was shown was decent.

Lastly, I have this duality about my Frame 👓 where I want to create some adversarial aspect to it. I’d love for it, or similar hardware to emit a scrambler signal for the times I don’t want someone else’s 👓 (or camera wearable) to be taking me in. A “Black Mirror future” of this would be folks paying Meta (or whomever) to be obscured in another’s wearable recordings. We aren’t far from this… and I can see the small flyers at shops, and the HR terms at businesses restricting 👓, even for those of us who wear them, because of the lack of agency/agreement in being recorded/re-viewed. This part makes Meta’s announcements (last night) hit the side of leadership folks “doing life with AI” aren’t paying as much attention to. And they should… lots of 👁️ on more stuff isn’t just about being 😎 Read the TOS folks, then buy & use connected 👓 with discretion.

On Small Experiments

Mon, 15 Sep 2025 10:33:56 -0400

Was listening to a book review from one of our partners earlier and they mentioned a book which focused on adding small experiments into one’s life to help break down larger tasks, or remove the barriers causing procrastination so one can discover some other aspects to their processes, work, and/or life.

This reminded of the consistent practice here of doing lots of research and experiments around physical-connected devices and spaces with a goal of looking at the ripples of identity, experience design, and social interactions. We highlighted a few of these in a recent notable reads collection. Simply speaking, looking at connected experiences beyond the screen, and where more than just eyes and ears are engaged.

What could happen when you start treating some of these smaller, intimate devices as more than just a signal? Well, you might find yourself sketching ideas for something a bit more. For example, what could play with something like the Tiburn smart/connected badge do for you?

This is essentially a badge that you can program to show almost anything, in three colors (black, white, and red). When at certain networking events (for example last week) and they give you one of those lanyards, one could essentially “copy” and make their own. It could be the “this is a knowledge worker signal” when traveling thru areas during the weekday rush hours. Last fun bonus, it’s got the ability to pass info to others thru the NFC bits… so then getting from the “hey, what company is that” to the “tap it for more info/to connect with me” bits hella faster

Small experiments… 😏

Cause you never know what you might learn when you break your mental models about how things are done.

Next Up

Mon, 01 Sep 2025 19:55:24 -0400

We try not to make too much about the metrics/statistics of this effort. A good deal of what this initiative is about has to do with taking the diverse and innovative, mental, connective tissue of one person and turning it into exploitable opportunities for others. This tends to dissuade folks who may be looking at this effort as some kind of evidence of other artifacts or evidence of being able to be used for something else.

And that’s OK. The messaging here is pretty simple. This is an endeavor that takes the absolute edge of some consumer and not-as-consumer technologies and demonstrates how they connect to various narratives. Whether we are talking about user experience or mobility, or we are looking at the implications of security and language models, there is connective tissue that is in play here rather than… You’re not coming here to download a product, service, or framework. This is not a book… It’s the stuff books and experiences are made from.

So what does that mean going forward. Possibly that it’s worth keeping this effort open to those interested parties who are looking at taking their individual or business efforts forward? Perhaps, this effort is not even need it for that because it really is a solo effort and a dis characteristic ofthat person’s mental shaping.

What is clear, and some of this comes from the hardware and personal identity portal experiments that are happening right now, is that there is something about “next“ that is ripe for those who are willing to jump at it. It’s something more than “AI“ and something more than another resting of semioticsand rhetoric. What’s next has the point us away from the downward posture of screens and typing and measures, and point us up towards seeing how we are all connected in many various ways.

From there, well… “next up to bat…” seems like a great way to start the next chapters.

Applying Lessons Using Dia Skills

Thu, 14 Aug 2025 17:00:00 -0400

We went back to the last article and applied a newly mentioned Dia browser skill by @FaCo9 to it. Impressive output… we might have a new “editor” on deck. We recommend checking the link to the skill to get all of the text necessary to reproduce it (and depending on your environments, you might be able to use this prompt within other LLMs

Unlocking AI Engineering ROI and LLM-Powered Innovation

When we experiment with large-language-model services, the same question returns: How do we make our work meaningful to real people? The answer lies in sharing our case studies and experiments more openly.

Frame 👓 Experiment Update

For years we’ve tested whether glasses-style wearables could augment—or even replace—traditional prescription lenses. Using Brilliant Labs devices such as Monocle and, most recently, Frame, we have treated the glasses and the Noa app as a “thinking-person’s assistant.” A new device, Halo, may soon join the lineup.

The hardware works. The challenge is building software without drowning in repositories and pipelines. “Vibe coding” promises code-free development, yet it never turns novices into experts. Competence still matters—especially when diagnosing bugs.

Key principles

Use LLM services to accelerate R&D.
Don’t let limited coding skills stop you from rough-drafting components and apps.

Directions for AI Engineering

History shows a pattern: immigrants adopt a new culture, mature within it, then their children make it native. AI engineering follows that arc. Today’s practitioners repurpose old computing habits while inventing new rhythms and methods.

We abandoned the “one big prototype” mindset and adopted service design. By questioning our own assumptions—and refining them through LLM feedback—we shifted from “solve prescription eyewear” to “elevate information fidelity for existing glasses wearers.”

AI engineering delivers more than prototypes. It packages tests, validations, and simulated environments, exposing threats and opportunities early. Tacticians gain a wider lens; strategists move from prediction to simulation.

Key principles

Generate interactive, high-quality prototypes and content with LLMs.
Aim at outcomes, not features.
Mix multiple LLMs to refine requirements and governance.

What Comes Next

The emerging language blends forecasting and caretaking. Software becomes less a finished product and more a teacher. Ignore its lessons and you’ll suffer performance, scaling, or relevance woes. The AI engineer must play prophet and servant, scanning many paths and sculpting experiences that lead to the best possible outcomes.

Our Frame experiment proves the value of integration over reinvention. Instead of building a bespoke app, we add filters and faucets to an already robust platform.

Final Takeaways

AI engineering bridges behavior and solution.
Going beyond static prototypes maximizes LLM power.
Use your free LLM credits to clarify ideas early.
Collaborate where your expertise ends.
Document the skill-gaps analysts, designers, and developers must close.
Keep the narrative focused on outcomes, not infrastructure.

The Wisdom of Frameworks

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 07:00:00 -0400

Many years ago, had a wise person say to take the work and distill it into (reusable, compostable) frameworks. If I would do this well, it wpuld leave a distinct impression compared to others who might enter roles in more traditional methods (certifications, degrees, networking, etc). I’ve leveraged common, uncommon, and personal frameworks quite often to a positive effect because of that wisdom.

Some days ago, Zapier’s chart of “AI fluency characteristics” came across the screen again. Yet this time, I saw it less as a measure of competency, I saw it as a framework for understanding what Zapier sees for themselves, and for their products/services. At first glance, someone would look at this as a checkbox, but in seeing it again, I saw another version of a maturity matrix.

Have used a UX/HCD maturity matrix at several companies to focus conversations, methods, technologies, and even professional development. A matrix that is fleshed out enough doesn’t answer all questions, but does leave a lot of room for growth and remixing skills.

Zapier’s AI fluency framework reminds of of my own. And even more of the wisdom to make sure that one has a concept-enough of the landscape to map where they are, but also where they’d desire others to be along with them.

A Website, An App, or An Agent

Tue, 29 Jul 2025 07:00:00 -0400

Was getting ready for a network and research call when again having flashbacks of using the “secretary“ (Humane AiPin) as a research assistant and meeting prep device. I started to get discouraged and then moved over to the Brilliant Labs Frame glasses to try and shoehorn some of the usage there and thought about another context where it may be possible to leverage the connectivity to open AI, Perplexity, Gemini, etc. for some homework and interactions. This took me down the rabbit trail of using Replit to begin prototyping a website/application. And when I got about halfway through, I came to this thought: “we are now in the space of people questioning whether they need a website, an application, or an agent.”

The Way It Used to Be

15 years ago the conversation was “do you need an app“ because of the rising popularity of the iPhone and the carrier-friendly establishment of Android as the next mobile platform (really ASOP, since the failures of Honeycomb caused Google to push harder for modular components). And it made sense. The Internet was firmly in place as the next major platform and just about everybody who had some kind of common sense had a website and began to have a social media presence (ok, folks had social and email, but companies and brands needed that website). But the question remained for a lot of folks about the validity of having an application. It made a lot of sense to have an application if you were going to use some of the native characteristics of mobile devices. If you were gonna take advantage of location, accelerometer, LIDAR, or maybe just the speed and getting information and getting feedback afterwards. An application versus a website was a battle many waged.

A Route That’s Becoming

Now, there’s this concept of an agent/agentic services (see the AWS explainer here). This idea that some kind of programmable interface goes out into the Internet and any accessible database and begins to connect information and activity in a way that moves faster than a single person doing so. In some cases, you could have an agent (think like a web crawler) go across several website to do a comparison, build an analysis, and then build a counter argument to that analysis, leaving the person who deployed that agent to use their expertise to discern how to take a process or product forward.

This idea of using an agent is not that much different than having a team of interns or administrators to go out and do some footwork for information that is rolled up into a larger report that turns into a decision matrix. The expert is able to use that decision matrix because they have a refined sensor within themselves to understand what’s important to keep and what’s important to throw away. They know the questions to ask, and how to validate the output of that cohesive/collective report.

What ends up happening for some of us is that we might use agents, or we might want to use agents, but we may not have the expertise to discern what is important to keep and what is not important to keep. We might deploy an agent to build an application or a website, but because we do not know about security protocols, that agent builds a website that has a very clear security/authentication hole that a security professional, or even a competent web developer would’ve been able to figure out And probably not even have as an issue. But the agent does have this issue because it was not given the parameters to be secure.

Therein lies the challenge for the new age of computing that we seem to be in. If you want a website, great. You’ll have to conquer discoverability. You have to do better than just search engine optimization (SEO) because optimizing for being discoverable isn’t the same as being valuable to content validity or sentiment.

If you have an application, you’d probably have a captive audience,. But your application has to take advantage of diminishing attention. Everything comes to the mobile. So how does your application stand out? Time in the application, and also how contextual is the information to the thing someone needs at that very moment?

And if you are doing the new thing - this agentic/LLM/AI thing, you are working with agent-based experiences to bring together layers of manual activity. Or, you are embracing a type of sensory experience that could otherwise not be done inside of our human capacity… a type of calculation, analysis, creation, and connection that would take a lot more time than what we may be given.

Decision Points for Web, App, Agent Experiences

How do you make the decision as to go for one or the other? Do you make that decision? Or do you allow the markets and the times and your audiences to make that decision?

This is the latest battleground. If you need a website, an application, or an agent… you have to figure out what about the information and services that you stand for are necessary and needed. And then put yourself in the best container to be found, and utilized.

image via Hyperspace, a generative “AI” web browser

Thoughts on Procurement and Communication

Mon, 21 Jul 2025 07:00:00 -0400

Attended a minor business procurement conference recently and like many networking-oriented items, this was a lot of conversations, business card swapping, and hopeful contract meshing. Avanceé is not exactly within this side of space, but it makes sense to go to these affairs to get an idea of the technical and operational hurdles our target market identifies with. If you will, it’s not so much the folks looking to get work done we focus on, but those folks who technically and operationally have gaps where they might try to leverage better relationships or acquisitions to fulfill.

This makes for something of a research opportunity for Avanceé. First, a parousal of the event attendees to get an idea of the layout and temperature of the meeting space. While a conference like this would be setup by topical layout; it was also key to look at how industries were setup. Then there was the shape of the people who manned respective tables. How were they positioned at the spaces? How would they respond to various folks who were at their table?

Based on that first walk through, there’s a couple of paths to take. Either there is the route to conversations (semi-random, with an eye to listening to gaps in planning and strategy) or a route to product development (listening more for operational flexibility and challenges with connecting dots to people/resources). At some events, there’s a bit of both. With a slight shift one way or the other based on how some of the conversations flow. The key here is paying attention to the flow. It isn’t so much about being able to grab an opportunity as much as it is about positioning for opportune moments.

Here’s where the connect and comms comes in. Previous connects leveraged the Humane AiPin as secretary and business connector. These days it’s more of figuring out how to use the Brilliant Labs Frame glasses alongside NFC cards, stickers, and a few other engagement points. For better and worse, this becomes a technical demonstration of capability just as much as it is the funneling of relevant opportunities. We’ve moved from research to validation/qualification of those potential leads in this moment as well; at least until there’s some better summarization which comes to the Frame 👓, it is a bit of a manual process.

It could be a bit smoother and easier in such events from our perspective. Using the event registration to align to direct and indirect connections before the event. Then use something of a “hey, we already know you” kind of beacon could close some connections faster. For those folks doing the more random connections, there’s probably not much better than a hello-convo-business card swap, but perhaps there is (maybe working on better lead capture options makes sense - scan my card and I get outgoing as well as incoming connections).

But this is waxing a bit too close to the sun. How we figure out opportunities is a continuous process, hence sharing it once again here. If there’s something that works without adding overwhelming admin for non-sales types, we will likely go about procuring and connecting thru it.

Speed, Velocity, and Tempo

Wed, 16 Jul 2025 10:52:03 -0400

Having a conversation adjacent to a previous about the “three-legged table” - business, IT, and UX (or CX if you prefer the larger wrapper) - brought to the table a wonder if there’s something similar to speed (business: time to market, market response, product development, etc) or velocity (IT: build response, component maturation, product management viability, etc). The word which came to mind for CX/UX was “tempo.” Why?

There is an orchestration which happens in measuring or managing the experience lifecycle of a product, program, or service. Mapping exercises often detail the features and nuances of this orchestration. Sometimes even illuminating the timelines which foster and fracture the narrative. “Tempo” feels one part the language of this orchestration while also not being the determining aspect of it.

Many of us assign “tempo” to a musical context. Not so much when we are playing instruments or performing, but when we are the audience consuming. “Can you feel the tempo” or, “did you notice the change in tempo” are common expressions of this revelation. Is the audience defining the tempo? No. But, they are acknowledging it and expressing their comfort or discomfort with the orchestration.

Could be a useful term for the CX/UX crowd. Especially if orchestration methods can be used to discover and enhance org maturity or sharpen the focus on business drivers and risk factors. Unless folks do like being out of step with their markets and consumers that is.

Avanceé Articles in 2025 So Far

Wed, 09 Jul 2025 12:00:00 -0400

Last year, we published a mid-year compilation noting the editorial-type pieces posted in the first half of the year. With 2025 a few weeks more than half complete, it makes sense to do the same for this year.

Jan 2025

Feb 2025

March 2025

April 2025

May 2025

June 2025

Difference Between What You Are Selling and What You Are Selling

Mon, 23 Jun 2025 14:57:32 -0400

Having been a part of several teams and a few companies over the years, one gets a good look at what products and services look like once they have gone to market. In some cases, one the product has gone to market, the actual company service steps into place. This could be an emphasis on customer support, timeliness to responding to problems, or even agility in information architecture making it easier to prevent high-level issues from reoccurring. And to this view, it’s often wondered if companies are actually being clear in terms of what they are selling?

So here’s the question for those of us who offer specific products and/or services: are we offering the product or service as our unique piece of value, or as the bridge to the thing we actually offer as valuable?

And this is ok if we are doing the latter. A company might be adept in (for example) Tier 1 and Tier 2 technical support. However, in order for them to address that value, they need to become notable for brining in products which make such support a priority and desire. For them to create or manage a product which needs less technical support isn’t to their benefit. In fact, it’s detrimental to their business.

In a similar analogy, a company might have the ability to engineer solutions which reduce administrative burden, but they don’t have the same adeptness towards the technical support artifacts which might come later (triage and privatization, handoff and governance, etc). This is a pure “we create/engineer a product” company who doesn’t have a later stage service element. Therefore, it doesn’t help them to pitch their product to a group who desires a lengthy and continuous training period once the change management process kicks off.

Figure out what it is that you are selling, and isolate how that might or might not be valuable to your intended and indirect markets. Then, focus on what you do that’s most value, and what they might value but need clarity towards. From there, the difference between what you are selling and what folks are being sold is less a question of “did we get what we paid for,” and more of a “we know the outcomes from purchasing this thing.”

Working with Refreshed Tools

Wed, 18 Jun 2025 07:30:00 -0400

Am not usually one to play with desktop software - much if it just has an overall UX that hasn’t moved forward in 40+ years. But, was intrigued to take a look at what The Browser Company is doing with Dia, a web browser distinct from the Arc browser they’d been pushing. At the first glance, it is no different than many ”AI tools” in that it’s largely text-chat based. But, then you push forward a bit and you’d see some pretty cool bits right under the covers. For example, this unreleased bit one of their team posted on Twitter/X the other day.

This was a great example of taking something that is pretty clear in use - having a number of browser tabs open, and then programmatically using them to complete other actions. It isn’t a completely new take on the web browser, but it is a revision to how persons who live in many tabs might approach how they use information around them. We could see how something like this could integrate within our notable reads shape of sharing - but then also how those reads shape the work we end up doing (sensemaking and synthesis).

We used Dia in a recent engagement to demonstrate the effacy of analysizing, correcting, and reporting accessibility issues in a staging environment. Where some of the analysis would have taken the better part of hours, this aspect took moments. Offering corrections happened faster. Making a sensible and relatable report also took moments. It was a total of four prompts, and in this case, we didn’t even leverage having Dia reference anything more than the site and one governance document. For pointing folks to”what needs to matter for meeting usability and customer experience goals,’ using Dia extended the browser to more of a research assistant. We did similar with the Humane AiPin; turning refreshed behaviors into desired results.

Uncovering new and novel uses of one’s tools is part of what the current trend of “AI/LLM tools” should provoke. Will it challenge some things you hold dear? Yup. Will it make some folks feel as if they missed the boat on previous convos? Yup. Is there still opportunity to advance your work and effort forward? Yup. You have to choose amongst your competency with how some older tools are evolving, and your tolerance for evolving your methods. It’s not always point-and-click, but it is quite possible to find something new in this forest of ideas.

Update! Neat to see The Browser Company tall of how Dia came to be in their newsletter - posted after we published.

WWDC 25 Quick Thought on iPadOS

Mon, 09 Jun 2025 16:11:34 -0400

As someone who uses iPadOS for 90+% of computing, Apple’s WWDC 25 is always an interesting time to hear/see what has been brewing. That said, given the order of presenting at today’s keynote:

iOS
CarOS
WatchOS
tvOS
macOS
VisionOS
iPadOS

…the expectation that something more powerful for iPadOS was definitely desired. What was shown did not match the vision I hold for the malleable canvas that is a tablet which encourages using multiple fingers, gestures, and interface tools to shape one’s experience. Given the order, and what was emphasized, one can only assume that the former vision of “a space between mobile and laptop” is now the posture of wearable (watchOS) and consumable (tvOS).

That’s a sad judgement for those who believe they build better experiences through software. We have failed to push computing beyond a paradigm of “point, dab, and laugh” and it shows in the inability to move interfaces forward.

Its a shame… and an opportunity.

For me, it will mean several more “tech support” conversations towards what hasn’t changed and why those bits need to be learned - and possibly a few more “they should hire you” conclusions which go into the ether.

For those of you who are developing a present use of computing canvases which go beyond the mobile and consumption paradigms iOS has done really well with, I salute you. And sincerely hope that your imaginations and projects break through the past files and folders we stay anchored to.

A longer discussion of how I view this canvas of computing was discussed in a chat with Muse software some weeks back… an older shape of this thinking was part of a contribution to a TAT design exploration 15 years ago.

There’s an opportunity for better… the iPad is a richer canvas than what WWDC shared today.

Clarity of Costs

Thu, 05 Jun 2025 07:00:00 -0400

So how much does it cost to not have clarity to your product or service?

There was a time I’d look at this solely as a design question. And then, I did the math. Every bad design decision led to something implemented that needed continual support. So, I’d started looking at the costs associated to support (support staff, training, documentation, governance/auditing, etc)…

…the math gets a bit unwieldy, but its actually a fairly straightforward answer every time.

The lack of clarity of a product or service equals the costs you are willing to absorb by having others pay for it. And yes, some companies are simply better at selling their liabilities than they are the product or service. I don’t mean they are actually selling you a service, they are selling you their lack of clarity…

…and here is where my design friends tend to fall voice-lessened. Design (call it UX, HCD, service design, etc) sincerely wishes that the value is held more in clarity than the lack of it. Unfortunately, in spaces where it is easier/faster/etc to sell folks on continual lack of clarity the voice of clarity (and its speed to implement) doesn’t make the math work.

Interesting that in these changing times where types of businesses which have organized around a lack of clarity don’t value design (customer experience, sound engineering, accessibility excellence, etc) are feeling most threatened due to clarity from a disruptor…

…its almost as if a lot of this could have been avoided, or at least better mitigated, by simply listening to what is really being paid for.

Reviewing Past Fractional Clarity

Mon, 02 Jun 2025 07:15:00 -0400

Conversations with a former coworker re-introduced archived content (in Muse where methods and techniques were used to establish an artifact called DesignOps (design operations). Besides having a delicious trip down memory lane for the use of Miro, there was also a delightful retracing of steps where I had to o serve content that moved from being difficult to understand, to being immensely more complex and powerful than many logical models. Part of that board had a sensemaking framework mapped to quadrants.

These quadrants were four distinct, yet equally carried, parts of work (an org change project leveraging human-centered design and agile project management methods). From these four parts, questions were designed in order to better focus the expectations of the customer, with the capabilities of the project team, and the outcomes gained by the project company.

If memory serves, some or much of this came from The Invincible Company. In my case, this was necessary to anchor the gaps/challenges into verified language, while being adaptable enough to work with the level of maturity which spanned the client, project team, and project company. This graphic took the better part of an afternoon to create. It came about because of several months of synthesis, testing, and arguments.

Clarity is like that though. You can have genuine insight and paths forward. But, if it isn’t in a form receivable to the client. Then nothing moves. If the project team doesn’t find themselves capable of using whatever skills they have to address the problem space, then nothing moves. If the attending business doesn’t have clarity in measuring outcomes, the crosshairs become a target on you versus a map to market-addressing capacities.

That Miro board is full of solid bits. It might be worth pulling on it for future pieces here as conversations continue.

Peeled Thoughts Rarely Shared

Thu, 29 May 2025 07:30:00 -0400

Peeling from some untold thoughts…

I saw the AiPin and iPad as complimentary to each other… and yet a different paradigm than mobile & laptop (which I also see as complimentary). I look at all of the “incantations“ that make up everything from basic writing to coding applications to now prompting, and I see a desire for friction to be even further reduced than what might be possible in this moment.

I don’t necessarily ascribe to the high amount of “group think” that collaborative software seems to desire… I see that end of management as being something for a specific tier of folks, rather than something widely enabling. I look at contemplative software, probably too positively in an opposite direction. Being able to sit with one’s thoughts, and create whatever… I don’t think that we do enough of that anymore. That we can sit with our thoughts and be our own audience before and after performance for the audience of everyone else.

It looks like a canvas that transforms into what we want to do as we need it. But it needs to be an onion… Something that we can peel when we want to “understand how it works“ or change how it works. But to be able to use it from day-to-day, to be able to use it with a multitude of senses, I see that as a canvas that’s not necessarily paper or glass, but it does use more than just tapping and sliding.

That’s this peeled thoughts, rarely shared

Articulating Something Through the Noise

Wed, 21 May 2025 16:00:00 -0400

Perhaps, seeing Google I/O meant that reflecting on what has been said and done in the past is an order. Here’s what we spoke about last year that’s showing in Google’s, OpenAI’s, and other news about the tech landscape:

Heh, and that’s just last year’s musings… going further back we could probably articulate a few other nuances lost in the noise.

A View of This Connected Time

Tue, 13 May 2025 07:00:00 -0400

Many people have complex relationship with connected devices. I do not. Using these devices, and in many cases, seeing the positives and negatives at the same time, comes extremely easily.

Of late, I’m looking at the space of AI devices. The Humane AiPin I called “a secretary” because of the way that I could manipulate audio responses and multiple notes to give me insight about topics and researching or people I am coming to converse with. The Brilliant Labs Frame glasses give a lens into an evolution of the open source software movement… You’ve got open source hardware, and both development and user experience augmented with large language models. Even the AirPod Pro on my ears points to being connected while also tuning down the world noise so that one can create a space that’s audibly comfortable.

I’m learning from the amazing researchers and activists about the dangers of these technologies and their policies. The implications of their continued use will very much cause voices, communities, and more to be upended. Those who have been yelling (and quieted) about these attractive handcuffs aren’t going anywhere - and they are not wrong either. Your work isn’t so important to use these tools that you should forget this… what might be sci-fi fantasy come to life for you, might be apocalyptic dystopia for another. You cannot hold these devices as holy without also understanding the propane methods that were used to put them in this place.

All of this is OK. And all of this is not what you usually hear regarding these connected devices and their resulting behaviors. I’m not telling you to use them or to not use them. I’m not saying that some items are worth an investment more than others. Be curious. And let that curiosity show you both the good and the bad. And then, build a future that humanity can be proud of… Don’t just make things easier for the moment.

Video: How Muse Fits Avanceé’s Workflow

Sun, 11 May 2025 07:30:00 -0400

Some weeks ago sat down with Adam Wulf, maintainer of the Muse app which you see used with the [Notable Reads posts] to talk about how Muse is used for Avanceé and a few other items.

View the chat on YouTube

When Do We Get to Molding

Wed, 07 May 2025 19:30:00 -0400

Watched three gentlemen at a coffee shop who pulled two tables together, with paper and laptop laptops spread out across them talking business. Wasn’t so much interested in topic, but I paid attention to how they were using the space to interact and manage their discussion. There were hand motions from one person. There was pointing at paper and shuffling between files with another person. All of them had a piece of their eye going towards the laptop, which had a privacy film on it. All of this in order to collaborate in a space and across several modalities that were comfortable to them individually, and collectively.

When looking at a canvas, we often think that work is some type of linear output. That things come in - as if they are shards of thought pointed together. And then ourselves or in collaboration with others we come to some kind of output that equals or makes more clear a solution for a dedicated outcome. However, the workspace is a lot messier than this. The workspace sometimes needs for us to pull together, artifacts that we don’t own, but are needed as a foundation to hold up other pieces. The workspace sometimes needs for us to have capability, ability, and distinction. We do more than just point and click. We, mold.

Some of the challenges about looking at spatial computing, gesture-based interfaces, or anything that is not a clamshell laptop with a pointing device, falls into this broken edifice of sculpting. The tools are not really things that we can use to sculpt as much as they are stencils for stacking. But, there are those people who play with interface elements, those people who design alternate means of getting to the same or different/remixed information who find more of their hands and mind’s ability to be leveraged. In metallurgy, one will call these people blacksmiths or alchemists. But it simply means somebody who’s able to take a multitude of context and meta-information and then create something from anything. Not simply just stacking, but literally mixing and remixing.

I wonder if software would be better served if it was something that we could mold… And I don’t mean code. But I mean a more tactile expression with intuition, tempo, and even dithering as part of the behavior of use?

I wonder if this silicon experiment ever gets into molding?

On Perspective

Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:00:00 -0400

Really dig when Satya Nadella and Microsoft publish the work trends report

Not so much because it is saying anything that isn’t known. Most of the people who are on this particular social network already understand the changing environment for spaces that deal in some aspect of knowledge management. (whether you wanna call analytics, user experience, project/product, leadership, or whatever).

What does this call out? It is for those persons or organizations who are using Microsoft products. This is a very clear direction as to how they are going to sell and update/upgrade their platform so that it can enable even more of these types of behaviors and working methods.

For a decade and a half, used to shake my head at why people would continually ask to help them with SharePoint (it wasn’t hard IMO). And while many thought SharePoint was a problem, or that there was some kind of secret to unlocking how to use it. The idea of a collaborative workspace that did the job of workflow management and versioning was an absolutely foreign frontier to them. So helping them understand this frontier and their power within it put them in a posture to be able to navigate the world that they were in - that they were reacting to.

Microsoft is more or less doing the same thing with their tools and approach here. That doesn’t make it right or wrong. But in respect to their platforms, it does make it significant to how anyone who uses these tools should consider playing inside of this playground.

I wonder if various businesses have the ability to write the same kind of report for businesses they serve or the platforms they create for the verticals/horizontal industries that they serve? And I’m speaking of small businesses and medium sized businesses… Not the well-known market leaders 🤔

Avanceé Reads for 25 April 25 🔗

Fri, 25 Apr 2025 14:30:00 -0400

Spent a good bit of the week focusing on how to tighten the offering here and focus some initial messaging. Feels like there’s been some solid progress on that end, with a smattering of potential for a new model of delivery.

The short description of Avanceé now reads:

Avancee is a micro-consulting platform delivering strategic guidance, tailored to the competency maturity of a user or team.

It lands quite a bit better than the previous… and sharpens the core focus. Same as this week’s reads.

Also published:

Making AR More Useful

Making AR More Useful

Wed, 23 Apr 2025 14:00:00 -0400

Good discussion topic over at Reddit asking what could make augmented reality (AR) more useful in everyday life. My comment:

It needs to extend physical interfaces or make one more aware to senses they might not be using. For example, being able to touch a an ordinary light switch (on/off) is what might be the physical reality. But the AR reality should enable dimming of the light via some gesture on the same object. If a magic wand (aka a mobile device) is needed, AR shouldn’t need the browser for more than discovery - and that’s only if one is in their browser and wants the viewport/canvas to read/sense the environment around them. For example, Reddit could have AR-extended communities or threads where upon being in that community, one can leverage an augmented layer or two to describe or even anchor a conversation thread (“here’s my thing I’m sharing with the community, let me know what you think of this nuance or how I can make it better” kind of thing. Haven’t really seen much about devices pushing echolocation type stuf… but it would make sense to me if stereo/Spatial Audio augmented reality by extending certain frequencies further. Hearing a Garmin Varia radar as a small blip that gets louder, corresponding to the distance an oncoming vehicle, feels like something which could be done a bit further. Or maybe integrating some of the past research done with sound that invokes a feeling of touching/sensing items becomes an AR layer which can be turned on, from devices which have radar/Lidar components, or even when one is looking at a picture/gif and machine learning plus AR enables one to feel as if there is tactile articles present. Going a bit deeper than just the eyes is my wish for AR.

Not the first time that we have had some opinion on AR. Here’s a some of what we have posted previously:

There really is a lot more that can be done. And many ideas have not yet been fully flushed out, even if they have been shared.

At some point, we have to move beyond thinking about what’s more useful to actually just going out and using new modalities. As this artist has.

Chatting about Muse Today

Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:12:05 -0400

Update: interview now posted

An hour or so ago, wrapped up a 90ish-minute chat with Adam Wulf of Muse (museapp.com and @museapp on the socials)

Chatted a bit about our use of Muse - daily/weekly use, perspectives on tablet/canvases and direct input interfaces, and what it means to have a space of thought that’s separate-yet-productive and distinct from collaborative/participatory software. You’ll glean a bit more about how Avanceé is also shaped as a business from this, which might be helpful in assisting you or your team’s journey.

Always a delight to chat and share how I use this software. And even more when the conversations bend more than just to the features, but what is enabled when this space between thoughts and activity aren’t interrupted by a tool, but meshed because of the tool’s efficiencies.

When its live, will go about sharing the link to the convo. Until then, best to visit the site, download the app (iOS/iPadOS/macOS), or join the Discord community to learn more.

UX Solutions Architecture - Four Pillars

Mon, 14 Apr 2025 12:00:00 -0400

pulled from filler content in an unpublished prototype

User experience solution architects, or UX solution architects, support and enabling design outcomes which mature human-centered design by enhancing product and service investments through improving technology and resource investments in usability, accessibility, brand trust, and applicable innovation. The outcomes of these deliverables can be classified as customer experience design or human-centered design (depends on who is the focus). Craftspersons are combination of subject-matter-expert in experience design and a high-context knowledge of systems or process-related solutions architecture.

Avancee’s design process is made up of four concurrent pillars:

Discovery/Analysis
Creating/Concepting
Handoff/Validation
Implementation/Analysis

Those four pillars engage several methods, tools, and deliverables to support and enable design outcomes.

Outcomes of applied design methods include:

Friction-lessened interfaces between integrations and a client/customer’s processes and systems
Compliance to local, regional, and federal standards for accessibility, usability, and readability based on WCAG 2.1 as a baseline
Reducing time for component or service implementation through leveraging standardized components in the user interface (UI), traceable methods in project management practices, and consistent feedback mechanisms (UX)
Not meeting design-infused outcomes creates:
Increased duration for completing projects, due to lack of understanding of user motivations, task, requirement, obscurity, technical scope creep, and/or delay in meeting compliance requirements
Increased support and training costs (often found through reverting to using training to make up for a lack of focusing on user needs during analysis and development)
Inability to reproduce consistent quality experience due to lack of performance, compliance adherence, or progress measurements.

Developers/Engineers integrate mature and ethical product interfaces to navigate diverse permutations of use and tasking - engineering is “implemented architecture.” This is core to solution architects as well as humane design practitioners.

Through architecting the software to be implemented, then measuring its success via user input, we realize the engineered outcomes and assess for fit, friction, and fiscal responsibility. To the UX Solution Architect, “defects” come via user insights and quality assurance (QA), not from running a debug script. These defects are then classified as operational, transactional, and/or process based and measured against industry, psychological, and/or organizational metrics.

Timelines: Musings on Productivity ♾️

Tue, 01 Apr 2025 11:00:00 -0400

Timelines is a recast or rewind of previously published pieces to spark old thoughts or ignite new ones. This timeline focuses on productivity.

You Aren’t Looking for A Coach

Mon, 24 Mar 2025 07:00:00 -0400

Here’s something that stuck out getting to the middle of this piece: you aren’t looking for a coach.

…People buy business books because they’re hoping for frameworks to solve their immediate problems (getting more leads, improving sales, scaling staff.) Choice isn’t like that. It’s a self-help book disguised as a business book. It’s about finding your way in a world gone mad. One that’s designed to distract you. But, it was positioned as a book to help you make more money. And, honestly, I underestimated just how little the world wants another business book. This applies beyond books…

And not much about what you might see on this site doesn’t look like “hey, hire this person to coach you forward because there’s this (clear and obvious) gap to what you are doing in your team or small business. Heh, have you seen those sites though… you read the platitudes and the links to the books, or maybe the case studies and testimonials and you are confident in them doing ???

Here’s the thing… you and I know the future holds change that’s easy, and change that’s adaptable. There’s going to be things you don’t know but will find out. And things you find out that you don’t know. And then you will… well, what will you do?

Some of you might be adroit enough to experiment. And from there map a few ways forward. Some of you might take such a map and script a few quick actions to address notable pain points, while others will see clearly where they need to add help. All of these are solid steps.

And some of you will do nothing. And that also might be a good thing - if your business or the industry situation is so rough going that anchoring makes better sense. Or you do nothing because you are frozen, overwhelmed, or threatened into stillness. As long as you understand why… or know where you might need to address those wounds.

But, all of this to say you aren’t here because you are looking for a coach to help you navigate whatever comes next. That’s actually our outcome, our posture. What do you need? Insight, empathy, intelligence, expertise… experience without incurring costs of building it yourself?

Yea, we get it. And you probably shouldn’t have to guess at how that is supposed to happen when you visit here.

HT: Referenced article shared by Trailblazin Tech

Timelines: Brigadoon Annapolis ♾️

Tue, 18 Mar 2025 23:00:00 -0400

Timelines is a recast or rewind to spark old thoughts or ignite new ones. This timeline focuses on our moments presenting at Brigadoon Annapolis.

Learn more about upcoming Brigadoon Live events

Torque Wrenches

Mon, 17 Mar 2025 07:00:00 -0400

Some weekends ago was working on one of my bicycles. I had a little bit of squeaking and went to use a torque wrench and the guidance of the user manual to make sure that items were in the correct set. When I got around to the headset, stem, I noticed they were definitely not according to specification. They were in fact, too loose to safely continue riding.

So I began to tighten them according to the Newton meters prescribed within the manual. I got to the second of the four headset stem bolts and this one ended up snapping. Despite using the instructions and the recommended tool, there were still an incorrect proportion of force applied. I sought some council at a local bike shop, and was able to find replacement bolts. But the lesson was learned, despite having the instructions, the right context, and even the right tool, there can still be situations where too much force is applied. And that force could cause a bolt to snap.

Thankfully, bolts can be replaced. And in some circumstances, there can be the application of cure-all methods in order to retrieve the broken bolt out of its place.

And in the same way, the analogy to businesses and their leaders also falls into place. Despite our best efforts, despite having the right team or the right context, we can also put too much force into a thing. And that may cause elements of a company to snap. That may cause people to snap, that might cause processes to snap. In the worst cases, there may be a law or regulation that snaps, causing irrevocable damage to the company and its participants.

Every company should pay attention to their standard operating procedures, and the governing laws and regulations of their industry, to ensure that things are not too loose. And when they are, use the right tools to put things in order.

In the case of Avanceé, we consult much in the same way a bike shop. We can advise you of better positions to apply force, different tools to measure force and features, and even in some cases recommend replacement “bolts” to your suite of operational equipment. Avanceé cannot change all of the contexts and controls of your business, nor do we want to. Avanceé cannot change the ripples which come from stripping bolts - putting too much force into structures worn down from age, relevancy, application, etc. Our methods rely on a series of sensemaking techniques and a continually evolving web of attention to create approaches which ignite desired results. And from there, we help you keep your eyes on what matters - outcomes - not the polish of the tool or fad of the moment.

My bicycle is back into working order. Most built things can be made new with just a bit of a different approach. If your team or business is interested in applying a different wrench to the challenges you face, then let us know how we can help so that you can keep rolling without unwanted squeaks.

An Inevitability of AI Doing Something

Mon, 10 Mar 2025 10:00:00 -0400

Conversations here usually start with a whiteboard and often a sketch or several. There’s some back and forth about everything from aesthetics to outcomes, with usually some kind of boundary offered (“do you want this now, cheaply, or well”). All in all, the conversation around shaping systems and behaviors to intended goals follows a fairly straightforward conversation. The rise of AI tooling seems as if it changes this process, but does it?

Been lightly playing with Replit for an idea stuck in the brain for sometime, and it’s mostly just fine. The ability to use it on iPadOS is a delightful break from some of the other LLM-coders. And the closeness to “building” to “analyzing the user’s intent” is a delightful change from bending into the technical architecture for every feature or purpose. That said, this doesn’t seem like a futuristic shape of building, deploying, and maintaining applications as much as this tooling feels something more “on the way to a final form.”

In conversations and prognostications about what comes after smartphones, there is also a “what comes after apps” context. Where anyone with a handle of natural language and their focused imagination would simply be able to cast their words and gestures into a pane (canvas, glass, camera, and/or microphone) to get what they desire. What does anyone desire? Reduced friction. Reputation being enhanced. Endorsement. Compensation.

They want to better ensure their survival.

Many folks are correct in saying that learning the how and why of machine learning tooling is needed now. Many anchor this in learning the models, or learning what exposed/sold/open sourced models can do. Some anchor this in the many shapes of generative programming around those models - prompt engineering on one end, workflow management on another, and a gradient of usage in between. And this works for now. It doesn’t create what will be… nor can it. Tooling of this moment is only good enough to ensure compliance and comfort for this part of the change. Tools are not eternal.

As a result of using AI tools, some work will change forever. Much like inter-office email changed as soon as email became as easy to finance as a computer on every desk, there’s some seemingly necessary behavior which will be changed because of AI tooling. It won’t be covered in a golden folder. Nor will it require signatures. It might have its own language, security, and likely, domains previously only imagined in the past’s view of the future. It might not even be in a language currently known.

Change is inevitable. And for better, worse, and different, the increasing use of this type of math (models, tokens, calculus, and energy) will be a pallet for some, and a museum for others. It might also birth moselums for what is held dear right now. Learn what you can… adapt, build, and reinforce. And then see what about AI tools actually work forward.

Timelines: March 2018’s Link Shares ♾️

Tue, 04 Mar 2025 11:00:00 -0400

Trying a new thing called “Timelines.” Pulling on older posts to revisit the paths taken or remind of what’s been happening. Let’s start with the initial link shares which launched this effort:

Opining about Human-Centered Design in Civic Tech

Mon, 24 Feb 2025 18:00:00 -0400

Cropping a convo for a wider eye/lens… the context being design/human-centered design in (a/some) #CivicTech spaces

How to be human centered when the operational objective isn’t to be humane, but to be operationally more proficient… such is the design challenge to transform its approach and posture once again

Could probably drop tools/practices and just focus towards training and behavioral development… use the “tools/practices” as the languages and impress a heuristic of product agility, operational versatility, and “readiness to {outcome}” as the pillars.

[P]robably have to become coaches/personal trainer-like… versus consultants/facilitator.

Design as an enabler of agility and readiness, and the language it’s expressed in is heard as humane (and yes, profitable).

If you will… if y’all can model your projects to be/act like theirs, but do so faster, humanely, and with on-roads for them to learn ask questions, then use your team’s narrative capacity to give them the vision of the future state they’d desire… y’all would probably have a route. It’s dopmine in the design cycle but usable.

Sucks to say “treat design projects like fake agile development just to prove a point” but it’s probably the angle they need to face their risk threats.

Can opine like this easily as not a current part of the #CivicTech space… those who get it are looking for ways to get it done, or swimming in/near uncertainty and increased pressures thru posturing. If Avanceé should be a part of this space to help your team shift/evolve their approach, get in touch.

Compliance or evolving agility; your call Designers.

Image comes from an old concept. Thinking about how to do interactions differently.

Update to Brilliant Labs Frame 👓 Experiment

Tue, 11 Feb 2025 15:51:16 -0400

One of the advantages of Avanceé’s platform is the ability to explore and experiment as we desire. We can take a look at the edges of technology and pushed towards our own affairs. This has been the case with a few products from Brilliant Labs. First, we looked at the Monocle, a single lens and developer focused device. It was really a chance to look at something that was on the outright edge of heads up displays and using artificial intelligence-like applications. Brilliant Labs then came out with the Frame glasses. These are a slightly more polished version of what the monocle was. With the added ability to create a few more applications with a more common programming language to those who are able to do so. And to wear something that has a bit more public acceptance than Google Glass or even the first few Snapchat Spectacles models.

Most recently, Brilliant Labs collaborated with eye-wear company SmartBuyGlasses to offer clip-on prescription lenses for the Frame glasses. This allows those who might have some type of astigmatism, low focus, or some other types of visual disability to be able to use these glasses to shape how this technology might go forward. We see these glasses as a chance to probably reframe what it means for “prescription glasses“ to augment vision. It’s one thing to have a curved lens. It’s another thing when you can also augment that curved lens with something a bit more connected to the environment around you. But it’s not overwhelmingly taking over your vision/cognition.

We received the prescription lens clip-on some days ago, and published a few videos regarding its unboxing, and some of the initial use:

For those who may not have time to look at the video, what’s most impressive about these is how comfortable these glasses remain. For those persons who may wear glasses on a regular basis, you would be surprised at the lightness of Frame before putting on the clip one. With the clip-on, they are definitely heavier, but not unbearably so. The way that the clip is designed, it fits neatly against the glasses. And unless you have longer eyelashes, you should have no problem with the slightly closer lenses to your eyes. You may notice some fuzziness around the edges when you look to the ends of the glasses due to the clip-on lenses being slightly smaller than the lens cut out of the glasses themselves.

Connectivity to your tablet or mobile phone is provided through the Noa application (also available for Android) and Bluetooth. From there, it’s up to you to engage with the developer community to play with or build your own experiences.

These are not exactly the same as the Meta/Ray-Ban glasses. Those are a more polished in terms of the consumer application, and are geared towards those who have a definitive use of certain types of recording or interactions with Meta’s applications of LLMs (large language models). Frame is more for the developer community — those persons interested in understanding what it might take to do AI hardware, and who have an interest in some more personal/not connected aspects of using language, models, and connected devices (learn more in this video interview). Regardless of the lessons, connected hardware shares in some possible nefarious ideas and also some pretty empowering ones.

Example of this was recently shared by Brilliant Labs on YouTube. This is an experimental feature to idea of the types of usage. This case is also a template for developers to extend upon as they desire. One developer has a GitHub repository showing just how far devs have taken things.

For Avanceé, we will continue to push forward with this experiment of looking at glasses that do not just need a curved lens in order to augment one’s sight. The hardware within these does pose some notable challenges, as does physics itself. But, the success of the Brilliant Labs Frame is captured in exactly this moment. These are glasses which are designed for those persons who are willing to take a few pieces and build their own roads forward. They’re not exactly polished in the sense of something you might be used to from Apple, Garmin, etc. But there is something of an exciting journey that can be had with these glasses and the software tools that are being developed. It’s a journey worth taking we believe.

If you are interested in acquiring the Brilliant Labs Frame glasses, you can check out their website here. From that link, you will also be able to see the Developer documentation and the link to the Discord community where several projects are being shared.

Stumbling As Agility

Mon, 03 Feb 2025 16:38:13 -0400

Stumbling forward. That’s more or less the feeling these days. And for each experiment and moment of research that offers a little bit of clarity there’s also something different upon us.

It was affirming to see a graphic speak to the amount of content that comes across our senses. And even in this case where it doesn’t even talk through all of our senses, the way that we are architected really makes an impact, or reaffirm the impact of everything from current events to the ways that we express our agility.

Agility is only good enough until it has been adapted to. This venture prefers to think that contemplation that lead to generative insights is a unique and actual practice. But, the space in which agility is expressed also reinforces adaptation. Seen how new products and services are manifesting deep research into “work” is a bit of a quagmire. On one end it’s insightful to see methods and behaviors show themselves in this new space of technological tools. On the other hand, it portends a type of future to which a consultive approach may be less valuable. If you will, expertise becomes the focus where a consultation might have been the ask.

Some will ask if there are courses to navigate these moments. The answer here is “probably not.“ There are types of avoidance is being shown through the agility of machine learning and the tooling around. It isn’t something that’s necessarily taught in the classroom. It’s learnt outside the classroom. It’s a type of curiosity and comprehension best formulated by building foundations inside the classroom so outside the classroom there is ample space for agency and experimentation.

How then do you craft an acceptable way forward? Honestly, trying to figure that out for this venture. There’s too much noise around building over top of a wrapper. There’s two little noise about the ethics of the business of these wrappers. Those persons who have a practiced or have a genetic disposition to focus are having something of a renaissance. While those who may be agents or storytellers may need to find a new type of muscle memory. It’s OK to stumble for a while. But the stumbling only points out where some weaknesses may be. Strengthen the areas that stumble, and you may develop a type of agility that was previously undiscoverable.

Considerations and Certifications

Tue, 28 Jan 2025 14:12:48 -0400

“I think it’s worth calling out the BS and pointing people in the right direction.”

Stealing that line from a recent conversation as we are getting set to increase activity with some local partners and am looking across the scope of what is happening to the space of technology operations.

About AI/ML:

Nothing about current AI/ML tech leads a belief that it’s the right thing, yet. And yet, even though we are pressing the AiPin into use alongside doing our own research. There’s a shape of being able to work better that many can and should adopt. But, only DeepSeek actually seems to be approach a type of structure mimicking the “focused expertise” we do innately. Really good thread expressing that on Twitter/X here.

Still don’t see any value in certifications around AI/ML. Are there folks becoming knowledgeable enough with some of the wrappers/transformers to help folks forward? Yes. In fact, there’s a positive case to be made for improving operational effectiveness with such tools (for example, our partner is starting this session). But, not to call it AI/ML… until folks are building and/or auditing models (ahem, data scientists and lawyers/paralegals), then it’s not quite something we’d deem certified. It’s tool knowledge, and applied experiments.

We are doing the same (have you noticed that Avanceé doesn’t recommend AI/ML anything).

The push away from Twitter/X by many folks continue. We have been on @Micro.Blog since the beginning of this effort because there’s something smart about the “post once, syndicate everywhere philosophy.” We are on quite a few networks - on purpose. There’s a shape of being available which might become more challenging. Authentication and authenticity come along with this. Doesn’t mean everyone needs to own a website, but there’s some good wisdom all should heed:

purchase your name/pseudonym as a domain; URL and email at the very least
if you like your socials, or like to speak/be seen, you should have your own blog
back up your stuff with a/several external drives which do not get connected to the Internet
purchase an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) with battery backup if you work from home and connect to core device(s) and cable modem/router
pay attention to VPNs (whether free or paid, look at how they implement that service and secure it and your connections)
use masked emails and email forwarding where you can
get on board with passkeys (and if not, get your passwords into a password manager asap)

Problem-Focused versus/and People-Focused

The nature of work is that we come from various perspectives to do a thing and be compensated for it. Either we are problem-focused or we are people-focused. Be mindful of each of these aims. The outputs are similar, the outcomes are vastly different.

For those who are problem focused, your “next” isn’t about solving the problem and keeping the customer around. Your next is mitigation and visibility. If your customer or product isn’t mitigating the problem (at its core) or making visible the things which are under control, then you are causing more problems.

For those who are people-focused, your next isn’t retention or relationships, it is maturity and agility. While it might come across a bit transcendentalist, there is a capability people ought to have esteemed or corrected such that their agency affords them more flexibility to govern their responses to outcomes. Where can you find, imprint, and then get out of the way? That’s how you focus on people (for now at least).

Wrapping Up

These are just a few considerations being taken upon by Avanceé. Doesn’t mean we agree with every premise or position, only that we pay attention to what encourages and threatens our current times. Whether you care to play with the tools or methods is up to you. We are here to help you take sustainable steps forward so that you can (re)engineer the present and setup a desired future. If you need help seeing this more clearly for you/your org, get in touch and let’s take this forward.

OpenAI Operator Quick Thoughts

Thu, 23 Jan 2025 16:33:59 -0400

There’s a part of having watched OpenAI’s Operaror video (and read the release and accompanying docs which says “in calling the AiPin a secretary, and this should be a part of its characteristics.” And that’s semi-good (heck, am actually not long from booking a flight after a few days of lagging on such).

There’s a part which has a less happy vibe to this… somewhat thinking about the lower-level tech support which falls near the “I don’t want to talk to a machine, I want to talk to a human” feeling. Not that the activity of this type of “non-owned bot” doesn’t make sense… but in a sense that we might be further yielding to a voice of doing stuff which is fine for the machines, but less humane than we’d hoped.

Still chewing… but initial thoughts are neatly conflicted (as usual for many OpenAI announcements). Watching/reading and wonder-filled all at the same time.

On Data Visualizations and Decisions

Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:18:17 -0400

Visualizations can lead to awareness, and then to ???

When doing/working with researchers and data scientists, there’s often this “make it neat to interact with” bit which falls into the reporting side of analysis. And yes, it needs to be as intuitive/direct as possible to understand what the research/analysis has found, but also how it connects to what’s relevant from the viewer’s point of view.

Can such views into the structure and decisions of government prompt a different response? Person over on Twitter/X shared a possibility under development called SF Government Graph.

Is the visual enough for the “interested” public? Yes. Is it enough to make, change, or invent new decisions? Not clear, not sure.

That said, if I were a social studies teacher, civics classroom, or committee/workgroup member for a government entity (I am the latter), such a dashboard would be hella helpful to see the kinds of connections between people, operations, and policy which validates the voices needed to keep, remove, or change decisions which affect our communities. This kind of #CivicTech ought to be more normally understood, wouldn’t you say?

Mindful of Crypto

Mon, 02 Dec 2024 08:00:00 -0400

On this holiday weekend in the USA, and consumer holiday in terms of how many companies look at the end of the year with an eye towards filling gaps in sales and profits. Of note on today is the concentration to digital goods. This year, it seems as if cryptocurrencies run near the top of the list for many. Part of this has to do with the challenges in economics for some due to several global factors. Part of this contains a fervor around control mechanisms of transactions, communications, and developer tooling - many looking for “what comes after feeds, notifications, and untenable content moderation.” But what should anyone consider about crypto?

For those interested in the communicative aspects of crypto, it’s good to pay attention to transactions and technologies. But it’s probably more important to pay attention to the softer elements, such as the regulatory environment, what is and isn’t traceable for those communication tech technologies (web3 or otherwise). It may be helpful for you to take a look at what it means to have moderation services as part of the behavior, or part of the technology stack, or both. And it’s not an easy solution. When thinking about crypto and communication, it’s very easy to move into conversations about Telegram, Signal, Nostr, etc and float past characteristics folks ask for but are a technical and/or legal quagmire.

Avanceé has stayed on the edge of artifacts like Bitcoin, Lightning, Etherium, wallets, etc. In fact, as part of one of our ongoing research, Liberapay for a tip jar, Unstoppable Domains for plain language wallets, and even receiving Lightning payments (via this code) has spawned some valuable lessons. Where we don’t see as much traction is within audiences who aren’t as concerned right now about the state of their monies. If you will, folks who care about the economic parts of crypto might have more invested in regaining agency which isn’t as accessible in dominant economies. And this is fine, globally and economically, things are shifting such that these challenges to agency might be more honest than the communicative aspects.

Of smaller, but no less important, are aspects crypto pushes lessons towards decentralized governance and federated infrastructure components. These are lower level, but probably the best cases for “crypto as an example of what different pipes can do.” There’s an energy here which isn’t too much different than HTML before CSS broke through, or energies similar to mobile design and features by Nokia, Sony Ericsson, and DoMoCo. Do you have to understand these parts to understand crypto? Actually you do. The financial and communicative aspects are built on top of these. It’s more than server-lessened plays, or new ways to build DevOps tooling (certainly part of this). Decentralized governance asks of community participants to take a more action-oriented role before and after scaling. Federated components need to not only be performant, but secure and regionally malleable in the midst of uncertain platform and regulatory constraints.

All of this is reallly fun to keep up with, can’t you tell.

So where should your company focus? Or, where does your innovation team mind the right things about crypto and not the noise?

Small projects should focus on whatever is accessible. If you are in the financial space, you should already be playing with Level 2 tech in a small degree. Minding the USA regulatory process is one thing, but pay attention to the Central and South American countries who are pushing forward without the legacy financial infrastructure baggage (or pressing on despite it). Building financial instruments which go beyond exchanges, wallets, and contracts is where opportunities arise. Level-set what you wish to see in 2-5 years, then work backwards from what you will support to what you will build, to whom you will train or hire to get there.

Larger projects should have a pin next to items like Molly White’s Web3 Is Going Just Great, Lyn Alden’s book and Nostr feeds, @Rabble’s insights and builds, and many others. Am of the opinion that experiments in this group need to lean to actionable insights faster than they become new platform products and services. There’s a different perspective worth exploring before striking one’s shovel everywhere. Am also of the opinion that much about crypto infrastructure is too unsettled - other than Bitcoin and Etherium. Ledgers and that’s it. Everything is being proposed and questioned on top of those it seems.

All of this to say, on this Cyber Monday, that your approach to crypto needs to be more mindful than dismissive. Whether is communications, economics, infrastructure, regulations, or products, the “fad” is in the noise of meme coins, the source is “why does a coin matter?” The yelling about money laundering and CASM aren’t to be quieted, nor should anyone hush the proposal Nostr’s SIP notes offer to content types and relay services. Find a space to listen, ask, and move your awareness forward. Then, shape your response accordingly.

As for Avanceé, well, we are going to keep learning… and maybe something else in time.

The Augmented Intelligence Challenge

Mon, 25 Nov 2024 08:15:00 -0400

Some years back, was pushed into teaching folks about Excel macros. Anyone who has worked on automating a part of their work certainly gets why it’s valuable. But, making it valuable for folks who have not? Well, that was a challenge.

Later, ended up working across a few companies where this ability to map, analyze, and automate became some of the key utilities for how my role performed. Even got into it with some folks because I passed up “collaborative editing sessions” due to having an automation in place (content template, API integration, calendar/task actions, and optional email/Slack notifications depending on context). Enjoyable, yet also challenging.

These days, I do a bit less with “showy” automations such as ones made in VB, Zapier, Apple Shortcuts, or IFTTT, but still have a few things in play. What’s most neat about some of these is how there is nothing artificially intelligent about them. I see a gap, I map what is doable with the tools in hand, and then run towards outcomes which make the most sense.

Am doing some “hacky bits” with the notes on the Humane AiPin to emulate some common CRM functionality. As with the previous automations, there’s a challenge. Don’t want to get caught up in doing something because it is cool or complex. And at the same time, we are in the shape of tools now where doing something things the same way they were done 20 years ago on computers doesn’t make sense.

Challenge: stop acting as if computing and behaviors haven’t evolved. Augment your intelligence with what is in/near your senses, then make your imaginations of the future, a gift found in this present.

Need some help shifting into this kind of perspective, get in touch and let Avanceé help you forward.

Implications of AiPin and Oura Connectivity

Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:59:55 -0400

Originally posted this in the Humane Discord; lightly edited and expanded thoughts here.

Been seeing some commentary on the NYT piece about chatbots/AI doing better diagnoses than doctors, and my mind went back to a prev convo (in the Humane Discord) on the AiPin being able to connect to the Oura Ring and other fitness/wellness tech…

…ya know something, there’s a medical information issue I didn’t see before that I see now.

Specifically (using Oura as example):

person connects Oura ring to AiPin
not only is ring connected, entire Oura account
person can query on similar aspects to current Oura offerings (sleep times, recovery state, etc)

A use which could be seen might look like:

{taps AiPin} “based on my sleep and activity data over the past year, what types of activities do you recommend for me to…”

Oura isn’t a medical doctor/credentialed physician, nor is Humane. But if the synthesis of the devices and backends together creates conditions for recommendations which mirror diagnoses or prescriptions from credentialed (and insured) persons, what’s the coverage given to a misdiagnosis to Oura/Humane? What is the barrier between “good faith recommendation based on a transformation of data” and “instructions which if followed have negative consequences directly attributed to the recommendation?”

Not a slippery slope either… this is more than someone taking data on their own and synthesizing a solution, or even taking descriptions from (for example) WebMD and then doing the thing. What’s the safeguards that Humane can put in front of such an integration to allow for the benefit of the data transformation (it makes sense) while also not being held liable when (not “if”) the synthesis offers something displeasing, illegal, or taken-out-of-context by the Humane user?

This isn’t a small question… but highlights what ripples behind “can we ingest these things and offer guardrails to unforeseeable futures?”

Direct link to the paper/research

The results indicate that ChatGPT is capable of supporting patients in health-related queries better than physicians, at least in terms of written advice through a web-based platform. In this study, ChatGPT’s responses had a lower percentage of potentially harmful advice than the web-based EP. However, it is crucial to note that this finding is based on a specific study design and may not generalize to all health care settings. Alarmingly, patients are not able to independently recognize these potential dangers.

There was another report/study done and published recently - pointed to in last week’s Notable Reads - speaking to a bias towards understanding and applying LLM/GPT outputs better due to expertise. Without expertise, integrators are going to have to account for liability in ways they might not have considered. Am not sure Humane isn’t thinking about this in some way. Same for Oura, Whoop, and others. If there’s some validity to GPTs being better at diagnosis, it makes sense for folks to use it. Liability is a consideration everyone should want to understand better before promoting.

Prescription Lens Judgement

Mon, 04 Nov 2024 15:20:49 -0400

If I do prescription lenses into the Brilliant Labs Frame, does this mean that the experiment to see if these could replace (or augment) prescription lenses is a failure?

Is just considering prescription lenses a judgement of a failed experiment?

———

Saw a few renewed takes on Meta’s Orion and Snap’s latest Spectacles. Ended up throwing on YT one of them. Grabbed my Brilliant Labs Frame glasses, and let the ideas wash over me a bit.

I’m hearing Meta’s Orion as the “demo that never dies” kind of thing that some of our design/UX folks get stuck in. Not that Meta isn’t intentional to bring this to market… but the “demo culture” that enabled or empowered it to be shown well before it could launch.

Brilliant Labs, on the other hand did a thing often mentioned by a friend - pushed past the noise and asked directly: so what about this is useful and functional enough to ship and support now? Ok, do it and stop talking

I’m scribbling thoughts on my Frame experiment and finding that voice and Meta’s demo a really interesting juxtaposition…

…there’s so much excitement about the novelty of these glasses, but very little “what is useful and functional enough to be used now?”

AR, XR, and MR aren’t taking a disability and making it fashionable. If anything, in the context of “glasses are the way,” they are reversing the very bit which made glasses normalized. They are trying to graft FOMO into the lenses, so that those who miss out are deemed disabled.

————

Do people really portend to simply transfer the barrage of attention-pings from a screen which can be pocketed or covered with a sleeve to one which will require removing visual capabilities? I don’t think so. Same with others.

Life isn’t a museum, no matter what Instagram/Pinterest/TicTok have put forth. And a failure of broadcast media can indeed be pointed to people being tired of being pulled by the nose to mediated experiences. Do people like stories? Yep. Movies and compelling story content will continue to be a part of who we are. Needing glasses to make that story accessible? Well, it was a niche in the 1980s with the 3D glasses revival; it may end up also being the case.

Responsive Communication

Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:34:07 -0400

continued thoughts from the previously posted Refining the Contact Points

One of the ways am using the Humane AiPin is in the form of a networking assistant. For several events, have used the AiPin to make a note of contacts by copying the business card into its notes and then adding notes as context needs. Not a pure CRM, but suitable enough to remember context and reach back out to persons. Unfortunately, email has not yet been implemented, so some of the (non-text) messaging process is neutered. That said, it is showing a part of friction that seems to be present with a lot of small businesses who wish to grow their network and service capacity.

Generally, once you’ve received contact information, it’s customary to reach out to ensure that the initial connection is one worth keeping. Many of us might do this easily with familiar and impromptu connections with a “hey there, just reaching out” kind of message. In this business context, the push is similar, though there is some means of record keeping so that you aren’t doing this too often. There’s sometimes a threshold (how many times to reach out, how often till you expect to hear back, etc.) also established. This might be an internal number until some sales/communications strategy is developed. This might be some alignment to marketing/business development practices, or capped by regulatory compliance.

Where the AiPin, and really most of us, seem to have issue here is in the friction of being responsive. Whether this is making that outreach or responding, we sometimes encounter friction to communication. Sometimes, it’s the deluge of other messages asking for our attention - so we miss messages, skip for later, or flag/label but procrastinate. Or maybe we do make that communication, but the response we are looking for doesn’t happen (or happen in a time window that we’d expect). For this, we can only make guesses at what kept someone from being responsive - while also monitoring our own expectations and timing to whatever the message needs to convey.

Sales would tell you things such as frequency, multi-contact points, and even being intrusive would be ways to mitigate the negative characteristics of responsiveness. While some industries and individuals are built for this, one of the most apparent things about this connected age is that everyone and everything is vying for limited attention. Individual and collective bandwidth is constantly being stretched, but not increased. Where much about generating a connection seems to fail is in putting more stuff into a pipe which just is not able to take it.

So, what do we do? There’s suggestions such as automation, warm/cold contacts, in-person vs remote, and frequency hopping which might be useful - if not stressful. There’s some hope that some of the “AI wrappers” would be able to better automate the harder bits, freeing the personalized experience for those connections which come to a particular level. This is some/most of the hope of using the AiPin, simplifying some of the experience of connecting and synthesizing such that being intentional is a characteristic of moving forward, not an accident or force.

Intentionality - we are all filtering each communication, each experience, through this lens. And whether we have the capacity or not, being able to respond in kind is a matter of intentionality. And a matter of prioritization. Sometimes these conflict. Sometimes the tooling isn’t able to meet our expectations. We can be agile to a point, but only to a point. At some level, what has worked just doesn’t anymore. And anew route needs to be explored to get the desired connections.

How to AI

Tue, 01 Oct 2024 16:28:08 -0400

There’s something of a running joke in tech-corporate settings where there’s this bastardizing of the terminology of a new tool or method which breaks forth. It’s really bad, and wouldn’t be as funny if it weren’t true. Now, there are several reasons for this, part of it having to do with the way we want to signal to people who determine our reputation. The other part has to do with how mimicry happens before adoption. Such is a sociological condition, and artificial intelligence (AI) is not immune to this.

Some folks will go the route of asking what kinds of tools you are using. Then, showing the automations, macros, and/or scripting which define their particular shard of understanding. This is the portion of the curiosity phase where an item has moved out of the personal playspace, and someone feels comfortable enough with it that it becomes a marker they use with others (again, signaling).

Some folks go the route of adopting language and methods as they were taught. They might state or show some evidence of a certification (personal feeling: there’s no such thing as being certified in artificial intelligence - it is not (yet) a regulated space through which risk measures are calculated for insurance purposes). These certifications might signal they have an affinity to the space, but not often more experience than academic exercises. Some exercises are good, but most only aim for generalized or best-case applications. For the certification to have more value, it should come with some additional metric (for example, hours in a live setting, apprenticeship, etc).

Lastly, you’ve got folks who will go the route of learning things themselves. The connected age has certainly made this easier and more accessible than any other time in history. However, proof-of-work is even harder for many spaces. Software languages are probably best applicable in this wise, as standing up an environment and being knowledgeable on how to debug are easy enough to assess. Conceptualization is harder to assess - how people think and then formulate into accepted methods, that is. Project and program methods are harder to do in this case without avenues such as freelance, pro bono, or similar practices. And even this is still difficult, as there’s a significant difference between working with a small client (1-3 persons) and working with a larger one (500+).

All of this makes conversations around artificial intelligence, machine learning, and applications of these difficult. Sure, anyone can write a prompt. And folks who have learned how a model was invented can develop complex prompts in order to get a particular output. But this isn’t “how AI works” any more than someone who is in the back seat of the bus saying they drove across country.

A few people can take the outputs of generative platform and debug it - but this too isn’t AI (or ML, or genAI). It is debugging and bits of applied/manipulated information architecture. Using the genAI features of an application to come up with assets, artifacts, or dashboard variants? Nope, also not showing anything more than an ability to use the feature - you aren’t actually changing the feature by turning the knob.

Being able to understand temperature, weights, and use Python, R, etc to manipulate the data or the model? Now, we are talking about actually dealing with aspects of intelligence modeling. Shaping a model to correcting the labeling assets (but not touching the data to do so)? Yea, this is exercising lessons of machine learning and language modeling.

So, where does that leave how you interpret the waves of people who believe they are or aren’t doing “AI right?” I’m sure you can plug into any of these services to get an answer, but after it’s evaluated, who is making the decision that it is a display of intelligence or a product of someone’s web of influence?

Notes from Humane AiPin Use

Thu, 26 Sep 2024 13:48:49 -0400

sharing from my AiPin journal an item which has been a part of “what can the AiPin do better” stream of thoughts

Thinking about the survey from the other day, and some of the other convos, I’m back to chewing on “what about email do I want from the AiPin?” A further reflection refined from a piece on working behaviors.

Then I hit this Twitter/X thread and a lot of nodding happens

A feature like “catch me up” feels like a piece of the “summarize all that I need to know” kind of item. For CosmOS (the platform behind the AiPin), it’s not so much that it needs access to repeat email content. But its agent on AiPin/other devices needs to roll up the most relevant information when it’s needed. So, not just “you have emails from (such and such)” but “your email from (such and such) asks for you to (do a thing).” Going beyond just counts and figures to “here’s what is contextually important and the action you should take or defer.” With and without the content, getting the sentiment of the email and what’s necessary by your designation, versus the call-to-action tone of many messages, seems the right way forward.

Am looking at the AiPin in such a mode often these days (I call it the “work computer” when folks ask me what I use it for). Most get that analogy, but not necessarily get what that needs to mean (related tweet to this point).

My stance/conjecture: if computing in the real world is the shape of now (HT: Humane CEO Bethany Bongiorno”s tweet), then computing which integrates less obviously w/n it needs to come forth. I think email summaries is just a piece of this… I am certain “based on these emails, here’s what you need to know and do” is what this means

Are Websites Still Needed

Mon, 16 Sep 2024 09:00:00 -0400

A few conversations recently brought back to the surface an older topic: is a website really needed?

To be frank, am speaking of persons who are not selling products but are offering a service, or displaying a competency so that they can be utilized for some type of knowledge expertise. What is the value of a website for these persons/companies?

Where the website was once the center of your interaction and knowledge with a person or business, it is now social media, interpersonal relationships, and broadcast/narrowcast media which takes these roles. The website serves as a validation point for those aspects.

For some matters where a person/org has expertise, they used to have a blog to share and promote this. Newsletters have taken over in this regard for many - and as such just having a domain name connected to the newsletter service replaces the website after some threshold for reputation.

However, there are those to whom the website is necessary because it is their best unfiltered platform. Their services or expertise might be best explained by the mosaic of reports, videos, insights, and link-backs across several spaces. The website then serves as the aggregate - staying as a point of record even if those other spaces no longer exist.

Should the website be complicated? No. It needs to be the most simple expression of the brand and capacity of the person/company. Spend time to define branding elements (logo, mission, vision, tone of content, etc) and leave the frilly features (gallery scrolling, interactive bots, etc) alone until interaction dictates.

How to get persons to such a site if it is needed? Lean into your brand messaging. If the display of your subject matter expertise comes in the form of decks, make sure your decks have a pointer (content and visual) to your site. If your premise relies on pulling people in from diverse areas, make sure there are as many doors to your site as possible (business cards, QR codes, social media handles, etc.). Own your brand’s domain name - and use it often (having your-brand(at)email-service.com isn’t owning your brand). And then be sure to keep those branches updated - your social media bios should show the brand and domain name. Same for alternative content such as what might show up in business guides, etc.

After all of that, your assessment of having or not having a website will be clearer. Notice how I didn’t speak about analytics - don’t put the pressure on your site to answer for analytics until you’ve got something which gains traction. Notice how we didn’t say to spend more on a custom website - you can build a website in less than five minutes (Wordpress, SquareSpace, MicroBlog, and many domain registrars offer this, sometimes in a free or very low cost tier).

Do you need a website? Probably or probably not. Decide how the website or its artifacts (domain name, media, etc) will be used and then just put it out there. The worst thing which can happen after that is that you’re going to find that it does more for you than you expected. And at that point, all of the above notes about what to do or not do will be even clearer.

Conceptualization as a Superpower

Mon, 09 Sep 2024 12:00:00 -0400

For a little more than a decade, taught a number of “corporate education” courses with the intention of helping to raise the floor of internal teams as it related to content management and data analytics. One of the more surprising bits of information learned across the years of doing this was a widespread inability to distinguish outputs from outcomes. Some would attend the sessions hoping to “get out of it” a shape of understanding an application for a specific output. A few would have higher level goals akin to managing reorganization and a changing strategic landscape; and these sessions were looked at as helping them discover insights which they could use forward. And a few would be there to just look for “how to do” a thing…

…for better and worse, Excel, SharePoint, Microsoft Project, and other applications tend to have these kinds of shared experiences.

Over time, the shaping of each session evolved from “here’s how this works” to “here’s how to translate what you need to know into what this tooling offers.” And largely, this evolution was successful in moving individuals and teams forward in their use and understanding. However, there was little actual innovation happening with these systems or organizations. An overall assessment of the work led to the disappointing discovery of a lack of preparedness to conceptualize more than it was a lack of ability to use/do a thing.

Part of the shape of solving for a particular issue, or driving towards a desired outcome, comes from the ability to conceptualize various factors (the problem, related conditions/issues, the impact of the outcome, etc.). Many intuitively arrive at this conceptualization through some kind of adopted process - more or less defining the solution by the process they are using rather than by the outcome which was conceived. Others may only see the output as the solution, limiting themselves to other aspects which usually ripple from their actions. In the midst of teaching “how to use…” we discovered a lack of being able to read the entirety of the story (or conceive a new story) and reoriented the sessions to teach towards conceptualization versus simply doing.

We did this through a layered narrative and outlining approach. Using macro and then smaller outlines (in each section) to demonstrate the shape of thinking which will guarantee a desired outcome. For those persons who might have come into a session already skilled in an application, such an approach freshens their skills and grafts a newer semantic language to their own. For those who might not be skilled in an application, the bandwidth required to learn and skillfully use the application will overcome them at some point. These method gave them a means to “clock out and then clock back in” with anchoring - helping them to create a new topology of knowledge rather than simply copying the instructor’s notes.

Conceptualization - a shape of sensemaking - is an old-new technique. We want people to be able to own and shape knowledge artifacts in such a way they are understandable, (re)usable, transferable, and (to some extent) not limited by time. Frameworks for learning which do this are more valuable than the applications themselves because tools change. Regulations around some tools change even more drastically than the tools themselves at times. Being able to create pathways towards outcomes which survive a likely destruction of the original conditions is something of a challenge and a superpower.

Think about how often you’ve had to relearn a concept, versus how often you’ve had to simply reapply it. If you had to relearn a concept, then your framework wasn’t as malleable as you think. When you find folks grappling with “how do I use this application, it has changed too much,” then you are seeing their lack of flexibility and agility. Where folks are more flexible and agile, you’ll see another type of wave develop - one which often turns into no longer accepting mere outputs as the solution, but as elements to measure the complexity of the outcome.

In a few of those old sessions, people came back because they didn’t actually conceptualize the first time around. They only got “it” when they divorced the problem of “knowing the application” from the thing they were actually aiming to do. Then the sessions made sense, and they were able to craft the story forward which enabled their teams to persist in the midst of change. Think about such things the next time you are offered a course or certificate - what does that actually prepare you to conceptualize? And are you capable of the outcome, not just iterating outputs.

Thought: Incompatible with Current Working Behaviors

Wed, 04 Sep 2024 08:00:00 -0400

One of the threads connecting our research with sales/opportunities is a framework where this work is based on a different approach to screens and input than most are accustomed. Utilizing a mobile and tablet for the better part of 15 -20 years as a primary computer is something of an alternate reality from the “we just discovered smartphones when Apple did it” contingent. Shoot, when the iPhone was introduced, was using Nokia’s N800 Internet Tablet as a primary device while reporting from an event demoing other upcoming devices. The shape of malleable devices and data was normal here while it was appearing novel for others. But appearing futuristic is a relational advantage and disadvantage to those concerned with managing risk, reward, and culture.

These days, the appearance of being futuristic follows signals put out by our use of Oūra and NFC rings, Humane AiPin, and Brilliant Labs’s Frame - let alone the iPad workspace and heavy use of canvas-based and workflow/scripting applications. There’s a “working beyond the screens” artifact alongside the speed and shape of technologies many might be enamored by - even if their imaginations have long held the ability these (and more) wield. Methods and responsibilities follow “transform this into something else” more often than it is to be an alchemist. Much about the negativity which comes with spreadsheets, slide decks, and AI follows along this - the work being done doesn’t seem futuristic because it isn’t. The behaviors elevating work to alchemy comes through a transformation of the elements of work, not just a repackaging of it (for example as noted within this story).

As such, this is also the challenge of the constellation of concepts within Avanceé’s efforts. For instance, user experience (UX) consulting has its foundations in human-computer interactions, behavioral analysis, and various methods of writing/presenting. But, the outcomes by a successful effort shouldn’t simply make an application more aesthetically appealing or improve the ROI of an operational effort. There should also be new behaviors which incentivize not going back to prior art. Perspectives otherwise hidden behind “I wish we could” or the leftover Post-It notes of half-day’s exercise (usually titled “when this is done, what will your job/task look like”) become so real that the future is now a present joyfully and continually opened.

So, is Avanceé’s premise incompatible with working behaviors? No… and yes. We delightfully ask “what are your goals; what issues prevent you from getting to those goals; what resources are available to address those issues” which creating a map of plausible futures. Or to quote a recent dispatch from the Near Futures Laboratory

The integration of the imagined and the real is not only a method for sensemaking and future-making but also a way to explore and expand the human experience. The artifacts produced through this practice serve as tangible manifestations of this integration, providing a space for critical reflection, discussion, and, ultimately, the evolution of new knowledge and possibilities.

There isn’t a single, dominant shape work which isn’t better off by being driven by the creative and emotive nature of its participants. The prescription when there is a fracture in the experience is to re-engineer complexity. You don’t remove it, you lean into how to embrace it. Our posture invites a spatial relationship to screens, data structures, and behaviors. From there, we push and pull with the expected and unpredictable. And as we become stronger in our ability to clarify the results desired - you are embedded into clarity of your mission (or condemned because of it).

It then appears futuristic because others haven’t moved from their past to the present. What really is futuristic goes beyond what can be solved today, pushing past the spreadsheet, deck, and AI chat window to something altogether new, yet familiar.

Avanceé can help you figure out what that might become for you. Unless residing in antiquities is what you want for you, your team, and your markets.

Is There A Difference Now for Social Computing Devices

Wed, 21 Aug 2024 08:00:00 -0400

Context: Sitting in the usual cafe-office, looking at the devices on the table and recalling a friend’s mention about new wallpaper on their mobiles…sharing wallpapers is such a social thing. If this were the “social computing” setup, I wonder what the “sharing wallpaper” moments would be?

In the rise of wearable devices, capability is often touted as being the prime factor for usage. But, that isn’t often the case. There are behaviors - sometimes new or novel - which endear themselves to the adoption and use of those devices which makes or breaks their use. Before Internet service was assumed as default, text/SMS was the revenue source. And behaviors built on top of SMS were key to this. Picture messaging, sharing files/ringtones, and group messaging stated as niche then became service elements themselves. Overtime, some of these went from add-on features to default - sometimes even being tuned into something proprietary so that a competitive advantage could be exploited. Not the only example worth noting, but a recent enough one to make this point.

When looking at the items had at the cafe that day, there was a similar “what would be the social construct that makes this stick” kind of feeling. It wouldn’t be the same thing it is/was with mobiles - sharing wallpapers, bumping devices to share contact info, etc. But perhaps it would be something similar but unique - may something sparked from a prompt: “create an avatar of the person in front of me and save them in my contacts along with the date and time we met.” Or, maybe it’s a “order me the same drink I had a week ago, and add that last week’s barista didn’t put enough foam in the drink.” Or maybe it’s not a prompt at all, it’s a gesture, specific to the person, but then invokes some kind of common ritual - raising one’s arm and tapping the top of the wrist twice shows a clock in the glasses along with the next appointment and time/distance to arrival, as an example.

Perhaps, this is a continuation of a previous topic

Why this would be a separate device/series of devices from productivity computing? Starting with an assumption that “working means large screens” and the input efficiencies of a laptop or tablet w/attached keyboard moves people into “this means I’m working” context. Social computing devices should invite a person to be more engaged within the world around them. The artifacts of computing which are useful (payments, camera, necessary notifications, etc) then deliberately layered behind primary context. In this wise, items like the Kindle or Daylight Computer DC1 begin to make a bit more sense for immersive moments. But need not to be carried when being immersed is desired.

In the past (two decades ago), there was a push against mobiles which did more than basic calls/texts because people already carried devices which did these things. There was no want/reason to merge this except for a limited few. Then, Steve Jobs’ excellent introduction of the iPhone challenged that assumption. The social computer and the productivity computer were blended well. It was clearer - when done well, the experiences allowed for an advancing of what was possible.

Now, we are on the other swing. People don’t so much want to have different/more devices, but they do want to have firmer boundaries between spaces. It is possible this could manifest in different devices for social moments. But, if it does, there’s probably also some behaviors which should be shaped differently as well.

Read the Terms of Service

Mon, 19 Aug 2024 08:00:00 -0400

Was introduced to a new-to-me web service the other day. As with many, it was “Al” related. So I did my usual… I went to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to see what is going on behind the marketing.

In this case, the TOS was not all that… good. So, took at look at the developer’s site and any TOS/privacy policy notes there. This was better. But also concerning.

The SASS product is meant to be a creative tool. However, its usage boiled down to “you can look at what you create and that’s it.” Downloading, modifying, copying, making derivative work, etc. all prohibited. So… what is the point of a generative art service when all you can do is look at it?

For the company, the point for them is a means to (freely) update their models. They get some additional workers, some validation, and hopefully good enough PR for investors and such. But, if you use that service, ethically and legally, what do you get? Nothing except a view of what your earnest incantations (prompts) create.

What’s the moral? Read the TOS and privacy policies for everything. Don’t just throw them into a summary-service/GPT script to make it make sense either. You need to know the details for what it says. And especially of you might be using those services in regions where rules are different. Just because you pay for it, doesn’t mean you aren’t the product either. Pay attention… folks aren’t always making stuff to serve you - their aims aren’t always aligned with your needs.

How is Avanceé Using AI/ML Today

Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:00:00 -0400

The straightforward answer is there isn’t a daily use case which is centered around “productivity.” There are the near-invisible cases such as memo-writing based off of feedback from items which come to mind or recent conversations, but these don’t move the needle to what many have talked about using AI/ML for. Well, not for some of is desired for transformers to accomplish.

There are some edge uses such as when looking to do comparisons or code changes/enhancements; where previously would go to several sites and piece things together. Now, sites such as Perplexity.ai are doing the work of putting those bits together. Using automations within applications is a frequent thing despite most other applications used are either the browser (usually Mobile Safari; Safari Technical Preview in the few macOS moments) or Muse. Even the data intensive uses in apps such as MindNode and AirTable cannot yet parse the existing content - or there is not an implemented model which is able to deal with the multiple content types and relational connectivity usually crafted. It has been more efficient to use an app/service’s existing IA structures, then let aggregation services (or even a play with GPT4All) handle offloaded snippets.

Hardware-Enabled Bits

So what about Humane’s AiPin? There’s got to be some productive bit happening there to justify that play, right? Well, yes and no. The aspects which would be better utilized for productivity moments are not yet implemented - specifically daisy-chained prompts which execute either spoken commentary or a memo/event/contact that is able to be acted upon later. Some of the more fanciful imaginations have the AiPin integrated with some of the content-holding services in use to be able to pull on those bits for various transformations. And the end of such imaginations has secure, spatial connections to my Muse corpus, where (a model am not yet familiar with) is able to pull on the text, images, links, ink, and connected content types to offer a conversation between myself and the AiPin which borders on the “second brain stuff many have been saying is already happening.

The comfort of the Brilliant Labs Frame (or also its newness) has led to it becoming a “daily carry.” There are some subtle, contemplative moments where these find some overlapping use with the AiPin - but the inability to connect to multiply devices leaves it tethered to a larger mobile not often carried. Some specific efforts to integrate with iPadOS and a few canvas apps could garner some positive results. A recent hackathon by Brilliant Labs points to some intriguing possibilities.

Am looking forward to the ML-enhanced integration coming to the Tap wireless keyboard. Seeing input methods challenged and improved through more than auto-correct models could be a huge enhancement for usability and non-linear inputs. However, when I think about one of the shapes of using Frame and the AiPin, am not sure that Tap is the best experience - yet. It is solid enough with the iPad Pro, and usable with the XReal Air & Beam combo - which is probably enough for now.

Hardware which listens and gives summaries is not used. Not clear enough on laws and security to proceed with this route. Other visual or touch-based hardware is either not available, our of budget, or not out of a research lab to consider.

The AI-hardware space is still quite new. Connecting to other devices, specially other wearables, seems to be a lagging shape for how these products anchor into the market. There’s some positive signs, but this isn’t yet a “standards make platform opportunities” kind of move. Too many of the nominal cases are the focus of major product features (translate, tell me about the news, etc.), instead of usage which follows niche or even harder-to-solve threads. Such is the challenge of hardware development - and it doesn’t seem that machine learning is helping to close that gap just yet either.

Small Wins

There are uses besides the code and content creation-types often put forward in ML/LLM demonstrations. Exploring how local content sources can be influenced by prebuilt data models (or an analysis of the content) has been one route. There are some positives and negative with this approach, starting with tuning models correctly to read the data formats properly. Nothing new is being learned from the outputs just yet. It’s all about putting the plumbing together before generating or transforming anything.

In the networking space, the AiPin has become something of a star for the “look at this business card and save it to my memos” demonstration. This action scans the business card which is in its view, and then saves it to the memos for later search and use. At the time of this writing, it is not able to save directly to contacts app - and would be nice to do so with contextual information such as date/time of connection, etc. What many of these demos show is the lack of approachable features and lack of speed between asking and outs. Still, contextual usage seems to endear a bit more promise and patience in tech-knowledgeable communities.

Another win has come in the space of simply explaining Avanceé’s position towards research and experimentation. Despite the negative and challenging media/noise about AI and ML, this pursuit of understanding has seemed to make a positive impression towards the space. We see something approaching-utilitarian regarding this which isn’t as often spoken or understood. To be able to crack the communication barrier, as well as the application one, seems to be a solid way forward alongside putting applicable products and services to use.

These are only small wins because the larger impacts just aren’t as possible yet. Part of this will be on waiting on some hardware or applications to be enhanced; others will be able to be extended based on what is developed or pulled from development streams. Close and open source approaches should keep the learning cup full, and the wins consistent enough.

Considerations Despite

This might make it sound as if “AI for productivity” is a failure, but it is not. There’s often-enough play with hardware and software which contorts itself to this AI/ML lens to see the probably of something utilitarian coming from this. Is it worth the cost (ethical, environmental, etc)? Depends on the day of the week. Is it worth the risk to avoid it? No. As with HTML/CSS in the late 90s, or MeeGo/Maemo in the late ‘00s, there’s actually a benefit to doing this - even if the short term wishes for expansion don’t quite happen as desired. Those cited and non-cited early plays are instructive here also. It gives space to see how ML is more utility than panacea. It demonstrates how artificial intelligence illuminates other fractures in information architecture, policy making/analysis, and regulatory processes. Those become the actual opportunity spaces - while models, schemas, implementations, regulations, and market participants sort themselves out.

Will the opportunity be enough to keep the imagination going? That depends on your posturing. If you are learning something, making sense out of what is happening, then yea, you’ll have energy for this for a while. If you are looking to make this into some kind of artful or legacy building effort - please be involved in infrastructure projects more than wrappers, transaction management, and even community building. If you are building hardware, don’t just throw a young idea out there - notice how the polish of consumer/prosumer market products have elevated UX expectations. Pay attention not only to the AI/ML feature, but also on-boarding, support, and even multi-language (including non-technical language) integration. You may not need an SDK at launch, but do want to think about what the product might look like as a platform for other applications. Approach some hardware as if it is a toy - and garner perspectives and research in that wise. Approach other bits as if it will address usability and accessibility needs of fractured or maturing populations.

For those who are researchers, experimental agents, and (probably) evangelists - your role is to be informed, honest, and consistent. Own your beliefs and your values as you watch companies and products rise and fall (Robert Scoble has made two lists of this on Twitter/X here and here. I’d say to not get too attached, but that’s nigh impossible. Instead, give grace to yourself when/if things don’t work out as you expected. And lastly, use the stuff - to a fault. Your value to both companies and later customers will be in your ability to describe how products and services align with the truth of imagination and use. Not simply with marketing. Pay attention to those products which had good marketing videos, but did not follow through with what the marketing video produced. Do you want to be an advocate with things that are able to actually happen. Not happening in the future, but are happening right now. And please pay attention to the voices and data highlighting the flaws in models, approaches, techniques, and practices (for example, this paper, this article, and folks like Abebe Birhane).

Avanceé will continue to investigate and experiment with some of the AI and ML tools where it makes ethical, fiscal, and technological sense. We will look at the companies that are investing rightly in the people and processes that should be elevated while paying attention to the infrastructure challenges. The regulatory challenges and ethical ones will not escape scrutiny as well. Because all of this is not healthy. All of this is not useful. But it is a perspective of use that is worth exploring. And when we are done exploring this edge, there will hopefully be a way forward that enhances humanity’s abilities, instead of diminishing it.

Complications and Re-Engineering AL/ML Complexity

Wed, 07 Aug 2024 08:00:00 -0400

A part of the work posted during some of the weekly “notable reads“ lives in the attention paid to augmented/artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). Much of this is because this is a popular topic, and there’s much worth investigating behind the hype and ”transformative actions” at play. Some has become a regular dive into data structures, language models, and model implementations. We purchased a Mac Mini a few years ago to explore this space with more depth - a prototypical research and development experiment. We are using the Humane AiPin and Brilliant Labs Frame as a “productivity and communication“ computers alongside an iPad Pro. Taking the macros and automations done already (Apple Shortcuts, Zapier, IFTTT, Microsoft Power Apps, etc), or refined, to understand how these items are growing to a wider populous in positive, negative, ethical, and economic contexts.

Defining the Complications

Most of the currently applied AI/ML space is not all that complicated (though impressive and frightening for many). Some believe the systems, or the data models used to determine/create outputs offer some level of intelligence not previously knowable. Our posture is that they are not necessarily elevating anything unknown (it’s calculus with a touch of social engineering), but are getting to the outputs of those transformations and calculations faster than had been done previously - or are done more efficiently than processes allow for various teams/orgs. Data science augmented by the power of a machine to do the non-interpretative parts of productivity. And for many, a lot of this activity simply boils down to “do you know how to make an outline to recognize the gap(s).“ Coincidentally, this falls near our observations of sensemaking frameworks.

An outline? Yes. A visual/tactile, logical map starting with what you know. The behaviors of creating one illuminates what you do not know (aka, gaps), and focuses your energies towards the avenues to address them. Bonus feature of many outlines comes in its ability to frame one’s narrative to the/an audience, making it easier to gain consensus or influence a decision. One excellent mapping method which blends well into data-driven analysis is Wardley Maps.

Journey to Re-engineer Complexity

The work that we have done alongside, others has simply been to figure out how large bodies of data can be organized or constructed to ignite focus. Not the way we hear machine learning is appropriated use. But, we see augmented intelligence following this pattern would be most sustainable if it followed this model.

What rises to the top within these journeys? Questions such as these have been asked around human-computer interfaces (HCI) for the entirety of the topic:

who is the person that is doing the acting;
what decision is being acted upon;
what validations are going to be present; and,
what do we determine to throw away based on those validations or the context of the actor in that decision.

Answering puts us into a space of seeing machine learning (and artificial intelligence) as the tooling for ways of working not yet been dreamt of, or were previously costly to implement. We sit just as much in the seat of a craftsman, as we would a strategist and validator.

Use Case: ML to Correct User Misconceptions

In one past experience, we designed a series of questions around accustomed data set, and “built from scratch“ language model in order to determine the inadequacy of user documentation. Yes, we could’ve simply answered this with a search query, and some carefully understood logs. However, we emphasized the inefficiency of how they transmitted information to others. Designing the documentation around the user, not around the business owner administrator, so that issues with supporting the application or business processes could fall into measurable containers. The language model was built to look at a dataset and test a few notable queries. Through the response(s), we could view the contextual knowledge the business owner administrator thought was present. What was really neat is that the developer we worked alongside was able to show a numerical confidence index alongside the prompt and the output. This gave additional context to the inability of that documentation to prevent support issues in the future.

In this case, the mapping/outline was for that of those people doing investigations into support issues. The journey explored why support issues landed into solved, unsolved, and nebulous segments. We isolated the audience (in this case it was development team). We isolated the decision matrix that presented itself (performance with a support team). And then leaned into an assumption that humans have, but a machine cannot have (“the information is in the documentation”).

The creation of this tool (a co-worker created a data model/schema from scratch) and its resulting output put us in a position where we could make better decisions about feature development and previously unknown support gaps. We found the (human) assumptions of what the documentation stated were false. The comprehension levels of those who needed to rely on the documentation was out of sync with their retrieval-abilities as needed and measured by the support processes. The machine learning agent developed exposed those assumptions, and assigned a numerical value to the confidence of each generated answer. This exposed the gap, and realigned expectations, content, and (later, refactored) processes.

Concluding Thoughts

Nothing about that exercise or some others is terribly complex. We started with an outline/map, and we built our way towards desired and undesired outcomes. Machine learning gets us there in ways that we might not have readily imagined, but it does not create new intelligence. You still need to have subject matter expertise, the ability to validate the model and it’s outputs, and also the ability to create, great context/questions for your data set. Without designing your environment in this way, the type of intelligence you will observe may be an hallucination. If you trust the wrong things, your hallucination might taste OK, but you’ll end up putting yourselves (and your customers) in a dangerous position.

Why Origami?

Mon, 05 Aug 2024 08:00:00 -0400

At a Bowie Baysox game, got a chance to have a table and engage with some folks around this initiative. It’s not necessarily the best place for talking about re-engineering complexity through coaching and consulting, but was an opportunity and a lot of lessons were learned. One of the more obscure lessons and opportunities came with the thought of using origami as a tool on the table to draw people in and ignite some interest. What’s most interesting? Is that of all the things that were on the table that were not the logo, this seemed to be the most effective. And not just children.

So why origami? And why was it such a draw?

Some of the initial thoughts about this centered around the pure absurdity of having origami at a baseball game. It was a family night. And there were other things being celebrated, so it was sure to be something that could draw the eyes of those people who were playful as well as their children. But, what’s the association to Avanceé?

The tagline for this effort is “re-engineering complexity.“ Such a tagline makes some sense as one thinks about what that might mean for themselves. Puzzles, complicated, folding artifacts, and connected devices point to levels of complexity we allow or are overcome by. On the side of marketing engagements, it makes sense to do things which draw people into an experience related to what you’re trying to get them to understand and/or take hold of. A couple decades ago that was using handheld computers as a teaching element for time management. And today, that’s using interactive puzzles as a means of getting people to understand what their goals, issues, or sensemaking frameworks might enable.

These tactile expressions take longer to root than giveaways, branded stationary, and even a paper business card. However, if done decently enough, they might endear the participant to wanting to explore their part in re-engineering complexity. Others seem to have similar ideas around shared boards of expression. However, we manifest, it just has to end up as something that was worthwhile, pleasing, and playful.

That might’ve been the case at the baseball game. It may have totally flopped as well. However, it does get you into thinking about what matters when you do come across something that you don’t understand. Are you drawn to be curious about it and then put yourself into figuring it out. Or, do you let the complexity lay as it is, and let somebody else deal with those ripples?

Brilliant Labs’ Frame AI Glasses Initial Impression 👓

Wed, 31 Jul 2024 08:00:00 -0400

As I arrived at the breakfast place, was a bit excited to share with a friend these new glasses. They were no different than the ones I usually wear in the way they looked, but they were definitely different in the way they acted. I took the glasses out of the case to put them on. Then turned on my iPad Pro to connect the glasses to them. I got a message: “you must unpair the glasses in order to pair them with this device.“ This was the first moment where there was actually a negative experience regarding the Brilliant Labs Frame AR glasses. And within the first 12 hours to say that much was the first negative experience says that they’ve learned a lot from their previous Monocle.

About Frame AR Glasses

The Frame AR glasses is the second product from Brilliant Labs. A small company of craftsman/enthusiasts, they have created an open-source optical wearable - two of them now with the Frame. The first one purchased some time ago, the Monocle. It is a single-lens device which clips onto a pair of glasses. It has a small HUD, microphone, and camera to be used concert with an application on one’s Android or iPhone device to leverage Perplexity, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, and Whisper for small applications. Teleprompters, object identification, and even somebody who did a really cool set playlist for a live concert, are the type of things that Monocle has stood out for. Frame takes those lessons and makes it more approachable by being designed into a well-fitting (and quite comfortable) glasses frame.

Frame builds on those lessons to extend them. It is not a prosumer or consumer-level device such as the Meta/Ray Ban glasses, or even Snapchat Spectacles, but it is not unattractive. The Noa application isn’t as easy to grasp for those not familiar with tuning large language models (LLMs) - but it’s polish on onboarding and use speaks to some of the better UX treatments w/n open source applications. Its Lua-based programming language lands closer to the Everysight Maverick Developer Edition we are also playing with - these are devices meant to help developers feel out and create applications while learning about contexts for overlaying digital, contextual content on top a person’s viewpoint. While not a developer to that end - there are some usable features and contexts using the Frame does help to build some notable questions, and likely some usable insights.

Concepts Turning Real

Some years back, I drew a concept pair of glasses which had a variable prescription lens. Threading on some of the lessons from decades of wearing transition lenses, assumed that similar could happen with lenses. And there’s some present evidence that such a thought isn’t far off. Frame gives a means to play towards that side of augmented vision without (necessarily) running into the IP space that is optical science. By definition and law, am not going to be able to replace my prescription lenses with these. But, similar to the Everysight Maverick (which also do not have a prescription insert), will be able to exercise some contexts where needing 20/20 vision isn’t as valuable as having an ability to identity parts of the surrounding area. Granted, my astigmatism is not as harsh as some - so this limited means of using AI to address visual perception might be a very limited case.

Another item which came to mind was the Pebble Core. Nearly a decade ago, the idea of conmected glasses alongside that device was merely a glimmer in imagination. But, looking back at what’s happened with Pebble and connected watches since, one can see what Pebble was pointing towards - even if people were/aren’t ready.

Other Impressions of Frame

What else has been noticed within the first day of wearing Frame? The comfort. In looking at the design of these, you would assume that the large bulbs on either end of the ears would make the glasses feel less comfortable. However, the choice of plastic plus the weighting makes these feel incredibly comfortable. So much so that even and dictating this impressions review, and wearing them with no discomfort whatsoever. They do seem to be a little convex, however. There is some glare towards the edges of both eyes from the flattened lenses. But this is nothing that really falls away as long as there’s no light coming from an obscure angle on either side.

Off of the initial impressions, what are some things that could be improved? For a consumer level version of this, would definitely like to see some small improvements in the on boarding. There have been some pretty major improvements along the way. But, the ability for someone to be able to pair to multiple devices would be a plus. Also, the ability to pair to wearable device (Apple Watch, Android WearOS, Humane’s AiPin, Garmin cycling computers, etc.) would go a long way towards helping some of the “local but not always connected LLM/AI” aspects be leveraged. Because there’s no computer w/n the Frame, it has to rely on a host device. This could/should be a neat piece of hardware for those who cater to local LLM approaches.

There are no speakers with the Frame glasses (compared to the Vue glasses which we also use). So if you are using the application to give voice feedback to you from your queries (toggle feature), you’re gonna want to use some headphones so that your surrounding audience would not know what’s happening. That said, the voice used is extremely friendly and does not sound at all like a very bad machine trying to emulate a human. At the time of this writing, have not tested with languages other than English, so will not give any notes on quality at this time.

From the AI-as-a-Service end, there is a limit to the number of credits/tokens each month (2000) you can use as part of the launch of Frame. There is no additional (paid) tier or apparent integration into one’s existing OpenAI/Perplexity/etc subscription for Frame - at the time of this writing. It is quite fast on recognition however (much more so than AiPin was at launch for comparison). Because of the reliance on having one’s slab phone, your feel of whether there’s too much friction or not will depend on you. Noa runs in the background on iOS, seemingly addressing a complaint I had with Monocle’s Noa app.

Frame charges via a small orange device called Mr. Power. This is a USB-C cradle looks like a clown nose, and needs a cable (does not come with one), but will charge the glasses from empty in two hours. My glasses arrived with at least 50% charge, but, still let them charge all the way before getting completely underway. There also two magnetic nose pads (to make Frame sit higher on one’s face) included. These sit in the same place as Mr. Power and need to be removed when Frame is being charged.

Lastly, prescription lens support would be the biggest improvement. Unfortunately, the lens partner Brilliant Labs worked with at the beginning of the frame introduction fell through. This meant for myself and others who were excited to have a heads up display with prescription lenses, we were pretty much out of luck. Some canceled their order, but we and others did not. There is a pretty interesting market for heads up display computing for those persons who normally wear glasses or some type of visual aid. Monocle exposed me some to those persons who needed on-time object recognition but might not have wanted a service like Be My Eyes. Frame points further to this.

And selfishly speaking, using Frame w/o a prescription has actually felt like a break for my eyes (similar to some of what’s said in the book Take Off Your Glasses and See). Our eyes are the one part of our brain which touches the outside world (some would say), and giving that muscle some renewed work and aid could be transformative.

Concluding Thoughts for Now

There’s much more to explore with Frame (it’s app Noa, and the Lua programming language). But, that’s for later. For now, am excited to have added Frame to the collection of connected glasses. There’s a hope its unique proposition could push glasses to doing more than just aligning to optometry‘s perspective of 20/20 vision; and that its LLM/AI integration can do more than simply creating more digital noise. There’s probably a better framing for all of this - and Frame may offer many of us a canvas to explore what that means.

Frame is available from the Brilliant Labs website. At the time of this writing, prescription lenses are not available. Glasses usually ship about a month from when the order is made.

Appendix: How Many Connected Optical Devices in Play

While doing some editing thought to just add a list at the end here of all of the optical connected devices in use or in experimental review:

Snap Spectacles v2
Vue Pro Glasses (2)
XReal Air
Everysight Maverick Developer Edition
Brilliant Labs Monocle (2) and Frame

Choosing Other Paths

Mon, 29 Jul 2024 13:56:00 -0400

Why do we do what we do in the business of selling?

From business cards, to networking events, to newsletters the products that are “just get your name out there,” and etc., why do we do what we do? Are we doing it because it’s a template that affirms and establishes trust to those people that we say we want to purchase something from us? Are we doing it because it establishes some type of reputation that’s easy to grasp because there’s only so much time in the day and so many ways to connect with the different products and services that come along? Do we do it because there is some written or unwritten rule by some gatekeepers to the products and services that we would like them to procure?

There was a point in a previous entrepreneur effort when I lost all of the metrics behind the work. Visits, external links, comments, all of that went away. Data security has its way of proving what works and what doesn’t work. It was at that moment for that entrepreneur effort I decided those measures needed to no longer be the mark of what’s sold or what success looks like. I need to actually exercise knowledge of the space in order to sell the awareness and products of that effort.

Was it harder? Yes. It was a lot harder. However, because I was no longer bound by the metrics around those rules and business pieces of selling, I could take some chances. Was able to do some things with interactive technologies, reach out to obscure adjacent areas, and even explore topics that were somewhat taboo. It’s really neat how curiosity becomes a selling point…

At the closing of that effort, there were a few people who asked if I felt it was successful. And my answer was “yes, it was.“ Instead of focusing on the path that others took, I focused on what made the product and service unique, and leaned into that heavily. And while there is less tolerance for that these days because of the amount of metrics and bandwidth and customer centric sales funnels… it feels as if there is a place for unique and authentic expressions of service. Not because most of us in this space are not positioned in ourselves as some sort of authority to be the focus of someone’s wallet. But because there must be something uniquely humane and valuable about our experience and the interpretation of our perspective which makes it valuable enough for others to come to us uniquely. Not because of a template. Not because “this is the way things are done.”

These are my thoughts before departing for another one of those bike rides. Somewhere in this “life at 10 mph” journey, there may come another approach to moving forward that probably doesn’t look like the template of sales in business development as we have been given. Will I grab onto that instinctive approach, or filter it to sell to you/them in some path which was already deemed?

My personal Twitter/X bio says, “The best roads aren’t paved until someone follows the path you cut and puts down gravel.” Guess what choice happens next 😏

Being Attentive

Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:39:58 -0400

If you’ve got an iPhone/iPad, and you go into Settings; then down to Safari; then down to Advanced, you’ll see this menu called Website Data…

That’s like a temp-ish storage area for the sites you’ve visited, and many you haven’t but have some presence on your device.

Now, you can go thru those one at a time, deleting the items which are unfamiliar. Or, you can remove all of them at once. And that’s fine. You’ll get a much faster browsing experience amongst other things. And might have to re-login into several sites. Which could be ok, or a pain… depends on your password/passkey use.

And that section of storage that you are like “where is that data stored” if you are low on space, gets a bit easier… a bit.

There’s always been these little crevices in our computers where things happen that you might not be as familiar. It doesn’t make it nefarious. Nor does it make it “magic.” These areas are often the hidden areas of infrastructure holding up the communities and connections you deem valuable. You have every right to be curious about those crevices. Even to look into who has access there that you might be less familiar.

But don’t call the collection of that data intelligent. No more than the section of a closet which has shoes or other clothing you don’t wear as much. Or, a section of a coffee table/desk which has notes, awards, and artifacts from past times. Those crevices are merely a section where work happens - work you might not be attentive to, but it has happened.

Be attentive to all that’s in your pocket/purse/hand. As much as possible. That is where your genuine intelligence is needed.

Avanceé Reads for 12 July 24 🔗

Fri, 12 Jul 2024 10:01:39 -0400

Took a little bit of time off to just let the mind rest and retool for a few upcoming items. Looking forward to the last half of 2024, especially as a relates to several new connections.

Also published:

AI As Accessibility Tooling

Wed, 10 Jul 2024 08:00:00 -0400

Do you need AI, or just a better memory?

In some past engagements, one of the superpowers exercised has been that of relational-associative memory. Specifically, the power to remember the threads between decisions, even having some assets to remind others of those decisions. When one looks at the landscape for some of the uses of artificial intelligence, we see it being leveraged as a replacement for memory. That gets us down the line of asking if we are replacing the wrong aspects of ourselves with these tools, instead of using these tools to strengthen that muscle?

For some people, their schooling years were filled with the reinforcement of memorization. You read a story and you had to remember specific quotes. Or, you took a test and were asked about obscure aspects of a story or piece of history that really required one to develop some type of framework for memory. For some, they held onto those frameworks, developing into the types of leaders or managers who are known for their artifacts and memory palaces of necessary items. They may have specific behaviors they utilize in order to trigger contextual memory; and at the same time may have a series of knots which prevent them from untethering memories from specific behaviors or places.

For others, even though those school years were filled with memorization, they never quite jumped the chasm of getting that framework. Instead, they relied on other senses in order to get through the doldrums of academic work. When academic work left, there was no longer need for memorization as a muscle. Those facilities which were already underdeveloped (???), were left aside for other facilities. For these, the rise of general purpose transformers (GPT) make up for the parts of memory replaced with other psychological or social aspects. So it seems that this is a type of intelligence, when really it’s more of an accessibility aid.

If language models, and the prompting/spells which generate outputs are looked at as an accessibility tool for memory or types of thought, how could we take a perspective of its biases, its wrinkles, its properties, and then shape the tool before the tool completely reshapes us? If folks need an aide for memory, then what are we rightly or not rightly giving people before they use the tool? And if AI is a method, more than it is a tool, who and what shapes the containers that memory needs to exist within? Whose narrative is worth remembering?

Updates to the Everysight Maverick Experiment

Mon, 01 Jul 2024 08:00:00 -0400

The Everysight Maverick Developer Edition is a pair of augmented reality/heads up display (HUD) glasses, which were released in order to help the company establish a solid foundation with developers before commercial releases would happen. We purchased these in anticipation of understanding the hardware, getting some sense of its usability, and potentially working with the software development kit ((SDK)). this post serves as something of an update to the research, some of the lessons learned, and a bit of a wish list for this and similar products.

Research Update

IMO, the Everysight Maverick Developer Edition needs to be more than just a heads up display (HUD) of another device one carries. Or, more specifically, your contextual awareness needs to extend further than simply knowing metrics. For example:

connecting to devices showing rearward traffic that’s approaching you
marking routes as fast, slow, frequently traveled when connected to a phone or other device that has GPS in shows a similar route.
when you see a pothole or some type of road obstruction, and you can mark it as such (tap the side of the glasses in this case) and then it’s shared to all the other mapping and activity tracking services (either immediately because your glasses are connected to a computer that does live syncing after the route is done and you go back online)

Right now, these are only good enough for showing metrics, but augmentation can likely go further. There’s just enough in Everysight’s example applications to give a peek that there’s more which can be done.

The reliance on a mobile (iPhone or android) also bugs me. Why can’t it be easier to have it pair to an Apple Watch? What am I missing in terms of the knowledge or ability to make this the direct connection, not an edge case? Connecting directly to any wearable feels like it should be table stakes, even though the best benefit (for those who’d white label this) would be the usages found thru a dedicated API which is (right now) just done in a mobile app.

If using these without prescription lenses (as I am currently) what can the augmentation begin to look or sound like:

Using voice and visual prompts for road and whether hazards
ghost views of previous roots and your timing if you’re traveling similar routes (how would the device do this without? GPS is still something I’m working out)

Because these glasses do not have a camera or other type of sensory mechanism, they would have a lower value for being used unless connected to another device. However, within the small display, there is still plenty of room for extending perceptive information. At the same time, because these do have that reliance, someone may decide to use these glasses instead of a connected device for an activity, and therefore any ability for the device to save time and speed, not necessarily directions/location, could prove worthwhile in higher security situations.

Wish List of Sorts

Connect the glasses directly to an Apple Watch and then show the metrics as they would on your Apple Watch, but in the heads up display. The application would simply facilitate the connection but the Apple Watch and Apple data would be what populates

Directly connect to cycling or motorcycle computers (like the Beeline or Garmin and push into the HUD from there.

Connect glasses directly to an electric bicycle’s computer. In this way, the glasses can act like a secondary authentication key, as well as have the ability to exercise the heads up display for metrics or changing some high-level settings while riding.*

Connect to the Humane AI Pin replacing the laser display for the heads up notifications. But still keeping some of the gesture activities on the AI, maybe allowing the glasses if it has that gesture area for things like a yes/no-type selector.

Prescription lenses. Specifically having either replacements of the current lenses with prescription lenses that also could be offered as a transition lens. Or just replacing the existing sunglasses only lens with a transition lens, and then letting the prescription lens be the extra lenses used with the attachment (current design).

Connecting to Lumos or other connected helmets directly without going through an application on the mobile. Enabling a person to see things such as the battery life of that helmet, or do other high-level controls such as activating/deactivating, turn, signals, etc.

What is the Hold Up

A few things are preventing some of these activities from being created. The biggest one is just getting up to speed with the programming languages before the integration of the Maverick SDK. That’s just a personal hangup, not anything with Maverick or Apple. Some other challenges previously included time, and staying attentive to this long enough to actually fight through the ideas to figuring out exactly how to implement. This may be an area where partnering with another developer would come into play.

It’s very possible that BMW (and other companies building onto of the Everysight Maverick Developer Edition device) are iterating in the same mindset and looking to release their software with locked/core integrations to their dedicated hardware. This would make some of the ideas here very good but, again for lack of implementation, not really worth anything of value. The opportunity Shouldn’t be held up by a lack of knowledge (so to speak), nor by not-yet-existent market conditions.

Sparks in Awareness

Sitting here, journaling about what I’ve done and haven’t done and see potential in the Eversight Maverick to be a solid node in a constellation of devices. There are types of interactions which should facilitate extending our perception to the world around us. Also being competent enough to get the beautiful layer of metrics that some people desire for making a “market“ out of this. There are other glasses that might be closer. But I think, especially with the focus on cycling and motorcycling, Everysight has the right idea for “awareness” augmentation - not just another beeping dot.

Crazy how such a reflection is sparked by new and similar glasses which have gotten some attention. If these make it to market, it would be solid. But, many of the comments of the Everysight Maverick Dev Edition hold the same for this.

Avanceé Articles in 2024 So Far

Wed, 26 Jun 2024 08:00:00 -0400

Theres a lot published in the way of articles and opinions. So, it makes good sense to give a breather to recap what’s been put forth.

Jan 2024

Feb 2024

March 2024

April 2024

May 2024

June 2024

From Scope to Strategy to Tactics

Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:00:00 -0400

One of the more challenging aspects of this Avanceé initiative has been in taking some/most of the insights from engagements and distilling them into more widely understood content. Journaling from past experiences can be a heuristic to leverage.

Without giving away any proprietary information, can speak of an attempt to shift an executive view from day-to-day reactions, to scoping industry verticals/trends, towards proposing tactics shaped by known constraints and future trends. The following keeps pertinent details.

Creating A Scoped View

After some time analyzing the day to day functions of the primary company operations around ICAM (identity, credentialing, and access management), we focused on a dozen high-level topics as a topical umbrella to key projects and sales operations. These were compiled on a SharePoint list. This list was architected to connect to a few other SharePoint list to connect to context which might better shape strategy and illustrate tactical gaps.

A few more notes about this scoped list:

a cursory definition and URL to each item as they were added
they were mapped to five identified “services/products” indicative of the major project work within the company
another column was mapped four distinct outcomes (internal R&D, marketing/thought leadership, service offering, and/or product offering)
another linked column - called Methods, Tools, Deliverables, and Resources - knit another knowledge repository to this
more columns included links to other lists (associated roles, company partners, and marketing assets
Finally, another column cross-referenced and linked to an extracted list of one month of the company’s sales funnel (and later 3-month). Each of the items in the sales funnel were assessed for their connection to the scoped item, and relationally linked.

This resulting list - with no other initial analysis - quickly identified the positives and negatives of day-to-day activity against sales activity, against the ability of the company to adjust to business challenges outside of known work.

With later analysis, gaps in product/service knowledge, timeliness of sales funnel items, and lack of understanding of current/future technologies stood out prominently.

Ripples of Scoped Activity

However, important seeing this was, it needed to inform the next shapes of executive activity: creating a vision and strategy for responding to technology and market challenges. So, how did this go?

It did not. The accidental ripple of just putting this mapping together was an indication of a larger gap in vision and execution, caused by mistakes in operations and business development. For example, less than 15% of the items found in the sales funnel (investigated artifacts for eventual proposal/sales pursuit) were applicable to the technologies noted on the scoping list. And while the existing work could map to the scoping list, there was a larger gap between the products and (in this case) the FICAM model used to shape the known products. If you will, one part of executive management ran a product but it wasn’t clearly linked to sales and business development activity - a lack of cohesive knowledge.

What could have been done?

prioritizing the scoped items based on market conditions and business capability
leveraging the marketing/thought-leadership items for quick content activities spread out across multiple persons
refining the product listing to clarify pure product, versus co-opted product, versus service, versus desired product/service
refining the sales/business development funnel to conform first to the product focuses, then to the scoped items, and finally to the adjacent roles identified

We identified a few other items specific to executive coaching, operational improvements, and program management maturity. Because of this and other lists/maps, much was heard (and will leave that there).

Reclaiming Some Gains

But, it was not all a loss. There were parts of the main projects which benefited from linking of obscure product/service lines and louder topics heard beyond the project space. Experienced persons took the framing and tuned their tactics to acclimating the language of the future-scoped topics, and then pulled those into their tasked work relevant research, analysis, or tweaks to implantations. This also led to improved documentation for some mid/large scale operations, and identified other role-gaps with team construction.

As this list was generated and branched from a few other frameworks, it allowed for more direct professional development discussions - some of which were challenging due to a wider technical knowledge gap than noted in an initial organizational analysis.

An accidental ripple unveiled major improvement needed for data coming from the sales/business development team. The data shared was an extract of another data product, and therefore missed notable features such as summaries of the content of the RFPs/RFIs, association to partners and competitors, and timeliness of the content (from addition into the data set to when it was last reviewed). If you will, this list exposed the siloed shape of business development, and answering quickly about specific and desired outcomes.

Avanceé Lessons

And for Avanceé, what did we learn? One of the most challenging aspects of strategy is shifting up to scoping, while also shifting down to tactics. Not being responsible for scope or tactics puts leadership in a challenging place when there is little understanding of the environment. Strategy - while valuable and what many might want - comes after clarity, not before.

What can Avanceé offer to companies who might be in a similar situation of needing/wanting a clearer strategy or tactics which better align with market scope company talent? That’s worth a conversation… but, it won’t be too dissimilar from the image noted on this post, or a similar map. After that, it will be up to your leadership team to execute based on re-engineering that vision.

Measuring Outcomes

Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:00:00 -0400

A friend asked, “how do you know what to measure?” My answer came with a caveat, “measuring only matters where outcomes are clear, shared, and honored.”

We then talked about what it looked like to structure onboarding behaviors for new persons to a company or project team. We started not with “here’s what the team needs you to know,” but with “here’s what your job description dictates what you can do, will support us in doing, and how we will support you.”

We then moved into outlining the behaviors and aspects needed to be oriented to the company culture and methods. Then to the project team’s culture and methods. I spoke of a self-assessment taken on day 1, day 30, and again at day 90 - and how these assessments are linked to the job description, company culture, and project outcomes.

And finally we came back to what we measured. We measured the extent to where the outcomes were achieved or not. The level of understanding, or not. We measured the clarity of what is handed off, and the vitality of what is archived for future work. We measured our maturity at the outset, the checkpoints in between, and at the close of the engagement. We measured the depth of the ability for all participants to tell the story of what mattered to the customer, client, project team, and organization.

Their response was filled with grace, and judgement, “I like this, but we don’t do this. Are we really successful if we don’t know even a part of this? Why are people in positions above me not emphasizing these items?”

There are always outcomes. Sometimes, we can measure why they were never possible to begin with.

Evolving Interactivity

Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:00:00 -0400

Some recent likes/connections sparked a memory…

Many years back, a literal career ago, got a chance to share some penultimate thoughts and approaches to leveraging mobile and social connected tech in non-mainstream & theological contexts (👋🏾 Global Recordings Network, Mission Aviation Fellowship). The keynotes and in-between conversations closed a chapter to a dozen years unpacking a mobile-heavy aspect of viewing connectivity, while opening my perspectives towards a multi-layered and spatially aware canvas.

Back then (and before), the spark of conducting workshops (by connecting mobile to a projector/screen, and controlled by a BT joystick) was just as much about the content as it was the interactive performance. Moving from theo-tech into enterprise, community, and civic tech, the stage was certainly similar, but the bar for mastering the elements of the stage lowered dramatically. Definitely enjoyed the moments where the tablet or other artifacts could be extended into the presentation, learning space w/o inciting fear, anxiety, or worse. And yet, my propensity to push at those boundaries certainly created some conversations, conversions, and critiques which continue to be leveraged (this was a fun one.

Evolving canvas and palette seems to be a part of a primary interactivity pattern. From mobiles, to tablets, to wearables - there’s a quiver of elements which we can use to communicate and learn from one another. And personally, there’s affordances to so much more than seeing, tapping, and beeping we’ve yet to take advantage of. Sure, much of our knowledge management behaviors might have been crafted against QWERTY and planes of glass. But, there’s so much more to our hands and fingers, so much more to our ears and the spaces in which we inhabit.

Physical therapists and yoga instructors often guide us towards understanding the trauma which is living within our bodies. I’ve grown to believe that creativity, curiosity, and more can also be cultivated from more movement. More than just getting a walking desk and closing your rings. There’s space in between the thing you are wondering, and the outcomes from your doings. Much like a bro getting “down under” to discover there’s more to living connected-faith than a wearable phone and tablet room controller; there’s probably more to your lists and decisions than standing up and circling back. There’s a sense or two worth exploring further… hopefully, you are able to chart paths towards what it unveils.

Affordances and Sustainable Product Interfaces

Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:00:00 -0400

Posted in the Muse Discord (5 June 24)

Every time I click the three dots (usually to change the title or do the connector) and launch into the object versus get the menu,I wonder “what would Muse have evolved to if it didn’t have pointer/mouse affordances like this as a first interaction, but as a toggle-able feature.” Would this been as discoverable if it were a tap-hold menu (borrowing from iPadOS’s press-hold-wiggle that happens with icons on the Home Screen or the platform’s better understood (yet sometimes still hard to find) tap-hold menu? I don’t know… I want to assume differently.

This thinking goes some/much into the “I use Muse on iPads almost exclusively, and in portrait mode. So I’m looking thru a lens of its tap, touch, touch-hold, and multi-finger gestural framing.” Certainly not the shape of how Muse has evolved, nor am asking for different (yet). But, for this long-time user who came to it in a large degree because it was designed for iPads first, and molded after its interaction principles, I notice those bits. I want to assume that much about interactions in this (and similar) apps has moved beyond “two fingers and a tool” but (eh, not a knock) the three dots, the sidebar, the toggled-menu, etc feel like it hasn’t.

Again, not really asking for a feature. More making an observation. Some of us truly do want to use more of what our digits are capable of in these, but is such an affordance sustainable to the product overall 🤔

Additional Thoughts

Many years back, a company - Ink and Switch - looked to move the conversation about tablet computers from “consumption” to “contemplation.” - for various reasons I don’t say productivity as they might have, or as others do today. In looking at what a canvas is best for, there was an approach to a product where the outcome was grounded more in focused thinking than it was some handed-off artifact. If you will, the thinking was the product, and your coming to conclusions on how/why/when/etc to do something was intersection with other platforms and outcomes. In exploring this, Ink and Switch also opined on the utilization of all of one’s fingers and the capacity of hands to simply do more than touch and drag. It encapsulated much of how I already felt about computing - that is, direct input is much more powerful than indirect input - and they eventually pushed forward with what became Muse.

Muse has evolved a good bit since its 2019 prototypes and release. It works on iPad and Mac (there’s a stub of an app for pushing content to Muse from your iPhone as well). There’s been a collaborative iteration (Muse for Teams). And much of it has simply evolved as Muse (the company) has as well. My feelings above are/were centered on Muse’s interface affordances due to such an evolution. It needs to be more usable by more persons, but in doing so, it pulls at what is familiar (touch, point, tap, viewable menus, etc.) and away from what isn’t (multi-finger gestures, additional actions with fingers and Pencil, etc.). This is normal for such a product, but am also wondering if it has to be?

Even looking at the newer pieces of hardware which have released, there’s little in terms of “do more than tap and push” with interface. There’s little towards pressure sensitivity unless one uses a stylus. The Humane AiPin does a push-pull-tilt with its interface - to varying degrees of success depending on where you are within this system. Off the top of mind, there’s not much else. Most novelty in interfaces is just two fingers touching a thing and that’s it. Capstone was an effort to push beyond this, but it doesn’t seem that the market beyond the niche of those who want/can learn how to use their hands more is actually viable?

Why isn’t it more viable? Is it the learning curve as compared to the population who can afford (time and resources) to devote to it - just using the word “devote” seems a bigger investment than “it makes doing (something) easier.” Is it because there’s not as much playfulness? Pinch and multitouch are much older than the iPad implementation, but the whimsy of how it was done made it attractive to use and adopt widely.

Or, the much less happy thought, it’s not viable because we have put fear of learning anew ahead of the comfort of measuring the old? Which, going back to “what does it take to make a novel product sustainable,” lends itself into the “novelty gets your attention, but the value is best realized in fostering normal expectations of experiences.”

Fluidity in Adapting

Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:00:00 -0400

I often use the phrase “ahead and behind at the same time’ to describe what some have describe as my posture with tech/connected living. It is something of a backhanded comment to myself, hewn from the days when I wrote for BargainPDA/Brighthand. It means a feeling of being in front of a change, and also behind well after it was adopted with all the bugs cleaned up, and UX settled.

I’ve somewhat grown in that view - somewhat - when it’s felt more like a sensemaking framework (🙏🏾 to Jan Chipchase for such a powerful term). Making sense of the world and our multi-layered relationship to one another within it is a continual process. Some might call it “maturity.” While others would see it simply as “growing.” In whatever case, there’s a shift each decade gets in this relationship. Whether they use those words or other, this shift is not small, and for the most part doesn’t allow for turning back the clock. Our ability to be settled in such changes becomes an anchor, for however long we hold it, until the next winds come and once again call us to shifting our position(s).

This article uses the term fluidity. And it seems to follow the same cascading principle of “behind ahead and behind at the same time.” At least in the respect that one needs to have some kind of framing towards how they will react, respond, and participate within a changing world. While also displaying an anchor for themselves and others, as we all navigate from our accepted present towards a hopeful future.

Thinking Matter Expert

Mon, 03 Jun 2024 08:00:00 -0400

Chatting w/a developer-manager and a data analyst about my Humane AiPin, and one of the phrases which came to the convo was that of a “thinking matter expert.” A spin on subject-matter-expert, and contextual to the sharpening of thinking which some of us prefer to see LLMs, GPTs, etc utilized towards.

We’d even chatted some in comparing it to the “thought leader” phrasing. “Thinking matter expert” feels similar and altogether different. Less about what one is posturing, and more about actively evaluating what might matter in some areas… almost as if one aims to become an expert in thinking, rather than in having their thoughts heard.

The conversations sparked by the AiPin have been very interesting. And depending on audience, uncovering artifacts about how we “think” perhaps a bit more than connected devices have done previously.

Frameworks for Professional Development

Mon, 20 May 2024 08:00:00 -0400

Many years back, and ironically while working in a space to improve the experience in using application management tools, delivered a presentation to a few groups of recruiters, then designers, based on a rubric I’d been working on.

Beyond the Slideshow, circa 2018

After one of those presentations, felt as if that rubric became solid enough of a foundation to use in leadership roles, and with many who had a difficult time in quantifying the impact of focusing on design experience to specific persons and contexts. Each time this framework has been used, I learn a bit more about what is and isn’t able to be manipulated. Frankly speaking, you can’t even lead some horses to water - and some horses you do lead to water won’t drink unless and until certain horses do. This is ok… eh, sorta.

In a more recent application of this rubric, I’ve leaned also on some supporting documentation. One of which being professional ladders (branches). Many orgs use these as a means to predictively communicate and measure personnel development against and alongside business objectives. However, many who wield these ladders have little experience or knowledge across all of the roles and behaviors. A secondary artifact (Methods, Deliverables, Tools, and Resources), I’d developed to improve this capability… to varying degrees of success itself. And this too is fine, curiosity and learning come in a different bandwidth weights to individuals and teams.

That said, am always excited when companies share what they’ve built in terms of these rubrics or frameworks. It takes courage to move personnel management from a corporate risk measure to a business validation one. When an org is able to make such a commitment, you can be assured they have some clarity of direction for various winds of change. And quite possibly, a handle on what disruptions they can withstand, versus those they cannot.

This Product Designer Job Ladder shared by Intercom is amazing for its depth. As a template, many orgs could use it to bolster their team’s abilities to communicate capability and opportunity.

Contemplative, Focused Computing

Thu, 09 May 2024 16:53:20 -0400

Every time a new iPad is released, or iPadOS is updated, much of the conversation turns to “but can it replace your computer?” I haven’t liked that one bit… and haven’t just replaced laptop/desktop usages, I’ve done bits with its malleable, direct input canvas that (as Steve Jobs noted) fit in between the laptop and mobile modes of work.

Attached to this is a note of a conversation - which while solutioning user flows, animed to answer user experience aspects the conversation missed. This conversation spanned the better part of an hour, and I was there only listening. But, par the use of the iPad, I could listen, scribble, design, and even test assumptions w/o leaving the space of being immersed in what they were trying to solve.

The point of the iPad isn’t to replace your mobile or laptop, as much as it is to help you utilize more senses than a few fingers - directly transcribing or scribbling what’s in your head with fewer intermediaries. That canvas is what’s missing from some of Apple’s execution of the iPad, sure. But also from many of its media audience.

It’s not about making more noise, but helping you build better behaviors to discern noise from noise from signal. And when possible, share to others the pieces they intend to decide, sometimes with visual depth they cannot yet get to themselves. That type of “thinking different” is where I’ve been with tablets since before the iPad.

If you are thinking computing should have evolved long ago, far ahead from clicking and consumption to something more, shouldn’t you expect and behave different? And, shouldn’t your canvas provoke such a focus?

Back to Reconsidering Productivity Computing

Mon, 29 Apr 2024 10:31:26 -0400

Years back, using mobile devices in various cafes led me to thinking and tinkering with what the accepted-normal was in regards to computers for productivity. I’m pushing thru some lessons regarding identity, security, and LLM/AI - finding this experimentation and exploration ignited afresh. Not so much because I value work - in fact, I think as a concept, it’s not the right way to working thru it. But I do agree that “presence,” “coordination,” and “considerations” move differently than a clamshell keyboard/screen or single glass slab. There’s something to this which should embrace our innate ability to be humane I feel. And maybe like in the past, it’s worth moving one’s posture to live in it.

Developing ICAM Experiences As A Learning Canvas

Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400

Learning and implementing a better and more secure experience pertaining to identity, credentialing, and access management has been something of a mild adventure. From reviewing the specifics of FIDO2, to attending a few security and identity workshops/conferences, there’s this sense I’m one part behind the ball in learning. And yet while looking at the pace of practice/implementation/policy, there feels like a sense of being ahead. This felt crystallized best when asking around the question: “what’s the difference between security and a secure experience?”

People way more qualified than I have answered, broken, and re-answered this question many times. Attention on “experience” by the FIDO Alliance has stuck out most notably. 🙌🏽 The mathematical models aren’t the issue (usually) - it is about what people do or don’t do which starts and caps what’s perceived as security. Digging into a bag of conceptual scribbles, I started looking first at simpler actions (logging in, continual auth, reporting, etc.), and then later into fuller concepts (“you do this action, what are you expected to do/decide”).

This led to a working-concept exploring front-end interactions - instigating questions to drive user, developmental, and business decisions - called the CIAMS Concept. The CIAMS Concept was kept simple with plain HTML, CSS, and JS preventing abstractions caused by various libraries from impacting my learning. Obviously, this caused some unique problems such as: “how do you solve for a dynamically generated QR code for passkey demos” or, “what shouldn’t be answered by here but should be shown to ensure it happens in a backstage action?” Each iteration of the concept led to some targeted learning through platforms like Radiant Logic, ForgeRock, Login.gov, Okta, and more. It opened questions similar to what FIDO Alliance answers in their assortment of case studies. And eventually expressed answers in rough, yet convincing terms.

It also had the impact of shifting how operationally to think about the impact of developing an ICAM (identity, credentialing, and access management) platform or following thru on its implementation. Change management comes very close to the desk of UX solution architects (or should I use the newer term “design engineers”). How people observe what will change and what is profitable to communicate or train, versus what should become a delightful revelation is part of the mapping of a security experience in ways which seem different from older conversations. Designers I work alongside are embracing service design just as much as they are design systems because the interactions are where security is judged - not necessarily the inputs or outputs. This adds to the plate of what’s important to know - and even more to what’s important to implement. Great quote on Twitter/X recently to this last bit: “…Your designs are only as good as their implementations.”

Driving on that road between concept and implementation has been the summary-lesson of this effort as well. As much as it has been a beautiful exercise to create this ICAM concept, putting it in such a posture where it could aptly demonstrate ICAM principles while simultaneously providing guidance to requirements or implementation has been (insert whew emoji). You find the layers of what’s understand about the tooling but not about the usage. Or, what might be conceptually clearer on one platform/modality than another. Given my penchant for jumping into some modalities well-before others conceive them outside of their imaginations, it is even more insightful to what feels like it should be a solved problem.

Some other conclusions from this experiment/exercise:

the pace of passkey implementations really has been helped by coordination between Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc.
some of what’s coming down the pipe in hardware (especially “AI Hardware”) breaks previous conventions (see “how to enter a WiFi password on the Humane AiPin” as one clear example)
the enterprise shift towards data visualizations can sharpen some security contexts, but the nuances of how to create and understand dynamic thresholds for various policies will be more of a challenge
there are so, so many parameters, protocols, certifications, to keep up with that it might actually be smarter to keep up with identified behaviors and filter the other bits from there
as an industry, ICAM seems to be commoditized; but the pace of implementations makes that harder to see in some contexts more than others

And probably my favorite lesson - curiosity seems to be where the canvas answers the difference between security and secure experiences. Not just one answer, but many, each with advantages and trade-offs. Will be very interesting to see how this evolves as JSON .canvas and spatial computing appliances approach wider usage. Some of those newer modalities enabling secure expressions for the kind of usage we desire from productive and secure computing practices. Maybe federation moves from the niche to the norm. Or maybe the negative hand of surveillance becomes the hoodie we cannot help but to adorn ourselves in.

Feels ahead and behind at the same time to be back at exploring like this. I’m scribbling to push even further.

Designer’s Evolution

Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:28:33 -0400

Spending more time contextualizing the tooling and behaviors other functional units are supposed to have mastery of than manipulating the time/space/components/etc which unlock human capacity.

Many times I’m fighting against this evolution because it means more of handling stubbornness and humility at the same time rather than learning, growing, or even reducing the load of information and systems that are being managed or modernized. Am seeing in regulated spaces - or in spaces where companies are transitioning from older mindsets to an agile and trauma informed ones - a manifesting of missing building blocks to those people who are craftspersons. For those who manage, am seeing a remarkable lack of creativity and boundaries. And for leaders, am seeing vision replaced with calculated risks, or a kind of conservative forward stepping.

Design engineering is popping up as a term that some are using to talk about the way developers and designers have to not only have an aesthetic sense of what’s going on, but also be capable architects of context. It’s actually not a bad thing in some spaces but it turns many of the tools and management structures on their head because now you truly do have people who are able to do “multiple jobs as one person” versus separating each functional task into a discrete unit.

For those who are not engineers, developers, or designers, they are being scrunched and pulled into a different type of widget maker. Either they learn the tooling around prompts and incantations in order to quickly transform known shards of information into storyboards. Or, they become those persons who are capable of not only finding a needle-in-the-haystack, but threading that needle to other haystacks which may not have been connected to or network before. And inability to do this type of connection and comprehension pushes these types of people not just out of the market but away from the vocation that is known as “professional work.“ This, too, is how design is evolving.

And so many people similar to myself who might have a generalist point of view or specializations across different verticals and horizontal specialties, find themselves not only doing the work of making old and new tools integrate with each other better. They are also doing the work of bridging old and new behaviors. They are speaking to functional units who do not know how to move out of their “spreadsheets.” While also speaking to cross functional units, who append to “@ mention” as the source of evidence - source of truth is given to agents to validate.

If we take a step backwards or step forward, or even a step higher than where we are now and look at things at the speed of humanity, we might find that everything is changing and nothing is changing all at the same time. We are evolving to a space where design and engineering are no longer unlocking human capacity, but the limits of it. Not exactly sure that’s the future that all of us desire, but without contemplation, it’s the one we are growing into.

LLM/AI Hardware and Muse

Mon, 08 Apr 2024 13:46:21 -0400

Over on the Muse Discord, shared some thoughts about it what LLM/AI hardware could look like to my Muse-infused working style. Sharing that here for some future exploration.

LLM/AI Hardware and Muse - Discord

29 Mar

As I am close to receiving my Ai Pin (and sorta of the assumption a few here might also have the Rabbit R1 on order), def wondering how to integrate such hardware/LLM approaches with Muse. Been scribbling thoughts/ideas, but don’t really have an idea of how to mesh such bits… yet

4 Apr

I am very much a sketch-ink-in-Muse-first kind of user. It being purposed for the iPad’s modalities is what attracted me to the initial Ink and Switch research before Muse even came about. For various reasons, I find typed text and outlines conflicting to how I “think and connect the dots.” Spatial connections between data elements (logical, relational, informed, and remembered) compromise the bulk of how my Muse corpus exists. Before the connections and linked boards features, there was a lot of “hey, at the end of the week, let’s review boards. Copy boards into others where symmetry exists, and draw lots of lines between items on the same boards.”

Analogous-ly speaking, LLMs more or less function in the same way - between typed text. Generative models do have some sense of recognizing patterns, shapes, and form, but not yet efficiently in the “there’s a mix between characters and scribbles which denote the same thing and can be associated to different things.” This is not a Muse limitation, or a JSON/SVG one, it is simply inherent to however we might say “the stuff in the pipes” is designed to be fit. Any LLM attached to Muse will be fine with many of my boards with links, images, and typed text… but those illustrative scribbles - nah. In the future, maybe… but not right now.

When I interact with the world around me, I’m making notes of way too many things. Sometime, it bugs me that I cannot pull out the iPad and sketch in Muse what I’m connecting. I see my past boards, I see content across the two spaces I manage (one is a collaborative bit). If I could describe it, it’s like Muse is my own Minecraft world, and the shapes and structures I don’t expect any/many LLMs to be able to deal with, let alone offer insight across the (admittedly wide and deep nature of) what I process daily.

And yet, Muse offered me hope that the “spatial content type” could be cracked for such bits. The .canvas element is something of proof that there’s others who get that machines reading data isn’t the only possibility here. Yes, behind .canvas is our trusty outline that more or less seems indicative of the format that’s most persistent (Dave Winer kinda keeps proving this). Yet if it gets ink… and we stop scribing in the constraints of an outline, then there’s possibility of more.

An LLM (or several) which can take the coordinate mapping structures, and aid its user in composing, remixing, and revealing aspects inside and outside of that coordinate model seems most appropriate to the shape of “tools for thought.” It is in this framing that I am wondering about Ai Pin, Rabbit R1, Tab, etc… not “can it tell me about what I know.” But, can it aide in sharpening where I’ve been instinctively going? And if so… it should affirm scribble, not demote it.

This is how I am thinking of “what do LLMs mean to Muse” and “how best to think about what one alongside Muse/TLDraw/Miro/etc aptly offer those who already know how to think… they just wanna focus just a bit more with a tool.

I realize that what I just typed might be rambling-ish for some, and “wait, what’s his context again” for others… and I’m ok with some of that ambiguity. Some of the nature of “processing our thoughts” just comes across in this way.

A bit more context for how Muse and hardware works on my daily - this is my ‘everyday carry” or EDC

I don’t carry the iPhone with me. Watch is sufficient. Monocle is currently more of a learning-tech, than a productivity-helper (most non-local LLMs can’t touch what I deal with in the identity, credential, access management space).

I spend a significant amount of time straddling collaborative and deep work paradigms (latter defined here). Muse is dang near perfect for the latter… it is rightly deficient for the former. The threads between these is where I see LLM/AI hardware best suited. At least for my working and creative styling.

Stymied, or Not

Mon, 01 Apr 2024 20:42:40 -0400

There’s this section of my Muse board (instance) that is nothing but a series of glasses and vision related experiments. Some of which are in various forms of being started or restarted. Others are in a shape of “maybe I should get working on that a little bit more.“ This is most true of the Everysight Maverick Developer Edition glasses. Had plans on simply integrating these with the Apple Watch and then later to integrate them with a Bosch-motored ebike, but those plans have been really slow to come together. And then they had a complete stop when I realized that the motor controller would be incompatible with an upgraded computer that would allow for a potential connection between the glasses and the motor.Stymied, once again.

This is something that seems to happen somewhat often. Leaping out into some idea or discovered path, and then something happens along the way they just closes the door or severely detours the intention. Much about what this endeavor has come from is the product of those types of blockages and redirect. And yet, Can’t help but still to move forward towards these imagined realities. There’s something about pushing forward toward an unexplored edge that makes sense. That makes everything else more or less make better sense.

The same thing happens with many organizations and teams. They push forward towards some aspect of who they desire themselves to be, and then they run into a wall. Some of the modern types of discussion and discourse would say that this is just part of the growing pains of a company that’s going to eventually break through. And I believe some of that is true. However, some of that is also just due to the nature of the , disorganization of many dreams. Not everyone has the ability to push forward and focus towards something that has definitive value, and is attainable. Often times we just plot forward and invent the future along the way rather than build it.

This is not written as something of a solution. It’s more of a soliloquy. Part of what it means to live towards the leading edge of your respective space means to take those roads that are not as widely traveled. Sometimes you can truly be the person that cuts a new road, and if you did the right thing, then there will be those who come behind you who put markers down and pave the road so that there is a platform of some sort that develops. Sometimes it might be yourself that does this, and those people are, few and far in between.

But, you should acknowledge when you are at a point where you might have outgrown the box that you are in because you are pushing a good bit more forward than the things around you were going. Into that, I would say don’t look at the blockages as a sign offailure, it just means that you were stymied once again. You have an opportunity now to make a decision to take another direction. To move forward, outside of the box that others are drawing inside of.

Negotiations With Audiences

Tue, 12 Mar 2024 20:59:10 -0400

Attended a four hour workshop and was reminded about the tenuous relationship that facilitators have with their audiences. There is the implicit structure of a session where the facilitator is regarded as the subject matter expert. There is the handshake of greetings and slide decks or other paraphernalia. There is the negotiation that the facilitator makes with the audience through affirmations and jokes, through summaries and bullet points. And all the wild the audience is making the same negotiation. They are responding with either questions or head nods (emojis if this is virtual). Where there is an interactive element, there is a tact admission of trust: these activities will embed the thing that you have been hearing, these activities will give the facilitator time to recollect themselves.

Relationships with audiences are based on something of a contract of trust. And it’s easy to manipulate that contract whether you are the facilitator or the audience. You can decide to be attentive or not. You can decide to comment or to share. You can decide to do nothing as the audience, and therefore the facilitator lives in an imaginary world where the things that they put out are great enough, but there’s no feedback to guarantee that great enough ever existed. It’s all about trust. A transaction of trust.

A sports media star said something similar to the effect recently, “superstars get the millions because they bring millions of views. While those people to whom we would love to be getting paid more (doctors, teachers, etc.), cannot because they serve a smaller audience. You are paid according to the audience that you serve.“ it is a harsh saying, but it’s a true one. In the shape of this economy, those persons who enable large audiences are those who are guaranteed a greater weight of this trust transaction. Unfortunately, the great weight of that trust transaction also means that they bare a larger responsibility to their audiences. Not just for delivering the thing that the audience wants, but also being able to see ahead of the audience once and desires to something else. And if they cannot, they no longer are able to carry that weight.

When looking to impact significant persons, it is very helpful to understand your posture. You can be the facilitator or you can be the audience. Sometimes, within an endeavor, you might relate between those two. But you have to be able to pay attention to both the context Permits. If you are the facilitator, you are being given the weight of trust. And your ability to transact is going to be applauded or rejected by the audience. And when you are the audience, the weight of trust will be passed to you, and it is your responsibility to either evangelize it to those who wish they were the audience, or to filter it to those person who must become facilitators in their own right.

After such a negotiation can you truly say that you met the needs of your audiences, or not.

Gateway

Tue, 05 Mar 2024 16:33:14 -0400

For the past week have been sitting with the term “gateway.“ In part, a recollection of Gateway Computers (mid-90s to 2000s). Another part thinking about the types of transitional moments which happen as people, projects, and products evolve. For those in leadership roles, part of the “work” of your role is recognizing then stewarding people and processes through those changes. You are one part giving them steps to actualize a vision which was set before them. And another part bolstering their energies with experience, guidance, judgement, and sometimes even disdain. Your role is literally that to be ahead and behind at the same time.

Where you find your challenge isn’t just in stewarding the moment, but what happens in between this. In the fractional executive role, this is the fuzzy middle - where you have little tasking but much exampling. Where you can inspect whether your framework gives the feedback and insights needed, or if you should tweak your model for more advantageous feedback and outputs.

Don’t be so fast to allow others thru to the other side just because they’ve realized you are there to facilitate some transformation. No. Help them own each step towards, through, and past that gate so they can be a way point for those who might follow behind them. One of the euphemisms we use is “people don’t follow the pioneer; they follow the person who follows the pioneer.” Recognize the futility of trying to get everyone on board all of the time and identity those who are ready, willing, and able to take transformative steps. Then for them, open the gate.

You might find that many to none walk through. And well, that’s going to be the case. Unfortunately, seeing the end of the tunnel is just seeing it, it is not the invitation to meet it. Your role - as coach, fractional executive, mentor, and even elder - is to be a signpost that there’s a gate here and you are pointing the way to something else. Allow others the agency to make of that what they will. But, never stop being that needed waypoint.

If At First You Don’t Succeed

Mon, 26 Feb 2024 12:31:56 -0400

…figure out what you did to break things and get back on track.

Am back at being able to get up to speed with the Monocle project by Brilliant Labs. Purchased this and seems like might have treated it, or its case, a bit roughly. Decided that it was worth repurchasing this while waiting for their Frame iteration to come in. After a few hiccups with resetting Monocle via its Noa app on a few devices, am back at letting it be something of an assistant in training.

A preface: there’s almost nothing Monocle does out of the box except to connect to Noa through your OpenAI and Stability.AI API codes. You’d have to build the apps or connections to support what you want to do. This is definitely a “developer’s toy.” And one needs to know MicroPython in order to push that bit. Am using that to get back into Python a bit… and that was stuttered when the previous one stopped working.

What next? Well, am hoping to just get enough of the basics in mind so that am clear to what working with OpenAI and similar might look like. Today. It’s playing the role of answering a few questions (one of which has its answer staring at my right eye). Later, there might be some better HUD approaches alongside other devices (that whole “constellation of devices” approach comes in here.

If there’s some advancement with a local LLM project, am hopeful that it can be a part of that as well. The way forward for small businesses will be to do a hybrid of connected and local LLMs, and hopefully a decent audit trail for record keeping. This way of working seems to be the better part of “learn how this tech works and what gaps remain” for some.

Beyond that, the hope is to not break things, again. There’s a shape of this tech which is reparable and buildable - but also parts which need a kind of durability for a different kind of sustainability. It might be akin to the model Brilliant Labs is putting forth, it might not. But, it’s worth pushing forward to see what happens. It’s only a failure if one quits, right?

Reshaping a Definition of UX

Wed, 14 Feb 2024 08:32:11 -0400

Amongst the pieces of things this initiative has made evident, one of which has been a misunderstanding and misapplication of what it means to do, leverage, or even understand user experience (UX). For some, UX means the visual aesthetic- the user interface of a website, and not even the interactions, but just its colors, layout, and branding. For some, their landing of user experience begins at interviews and design thinking games, and ends at reports with tangible assets to hand off to someone else to implement so that the interviews and games could be restarted anew. Regardless, of these and other approaches, it is just a problem.

However that may be, setting out to course correct postures and perspectives is like having a third vocation. The evangelism to those who pigeon-hole artifacts and practitioners is one layer. The offering to celebrity and framework pins another layer - which feels as if it is some kind of pinnacle for some. And then there’s this reconciliation to a golden rule for another layer - where the practitioner and experience design unknot from themselves into a thematic “reason” or “weighty acknowledgement.” Strange as it may be, people and companies alike traverse these levels, most finding themselves sticking closely to one layer, looking with love and disdain to the others. What if that were allowed to be normal?

In one of the ventures, we have an opportunity to set the course for user experience onto a more solid foundation. One where the company can matriculate through layers of design maturity, while the practice finds and develops itself in a shape not-to-different from the theological analogy just mentioned. Such a shape destines one for a route of patience and penalty. And yet, there’s something correct about “working out one’s footsteps of faith” while helping others discover how to view their own.

An initial grasp at this was to shift the term for the practitioner from user experience designer to user experience solutions architect. Going this route gave for a crow-bar to the widening of the posture and methods UX has already been accustomed to leveraging. Generally, a solutions architect is regarded as an engineering-derived role. One where data, process, and business outcomes are modeled towards attributes known by and tracked by the business (client) and their audiences (customers). These attributes also happen to be granted within the contexts of the known and discoverable technologies which can be built to execute that solution. The solution architect isn’t concerned with quality, but they are concerned with the quality which comes from the solution they’ve modeled. Therefore, ascribing this to the user experience lens didn’t just make sense, it invited reflection as to why this had not been done previously.

From here, we settled into our framework for defining design (design, code, context, research, and strategy), and its value-based rubric. This enabled some fine-tuning of what is and isn’t known about the strengths and weaknesses of UX practitioners, while aligning their methods to deliverables in a remarkably approachable manner. Plotting these on a scale per project, program, and organizational outcome enables something similar to a gap analysis (from one lens) and a shaping of what it will mean to solution better experiences (from another). Avanceé has used this framework for sensemaking and analysis purposes for sometime - it works quite well.

Regular monitoring of practice and practitioner commences from here, and then we can begin using artifacts such as a heuristic evaluation to determine just how close a product or process is getting to meeting the expections persons might have for experiencing the delivered artifact. This leveraging of quantitative data is necessary - design rarely comes across as anything more than subjective or “what can I see.” Driving those outputs into outcome-lenses helps to keep the UX practitioner away from unnecessary work, and can play the role of “tradable asset” to programs which might ascribe to Agile (and similar) project management practices. The disadvantage of these analysis tools will be a widening of perspective to the politics and devaluing of outcome-driven approaches by many projects or project participants. Many folks lose or gain religion here.

Ultimately, the execution of what has been discovered, measured, and tested will be evaluated by the audience (client) which must utilize the thing. Experience is subjective. And therefore liking it or not liking it will be a part of the acceptance of the approach. The UX solution architect is postured well for this because of the tenant which undergirds this framing - they solution towards boundaries of acceptance, they are not responsible for acceptance. This is the last layer many find it difficult to get to - user experience isn’t acceptance, its governance to what will be accepted.

If this diatribe holds, then we might be able to give a slightly better definition of user experience and its practitioners, and embue all parties with a sense of the execution which needs to matter to whom. Here’s where a shape of this definition stands at the time of writing

{company or UX-SA} integrates mature and ethical products which navigate diverse permutations of use and tasking; understanding engineering as “implemented architecture”. This is core to solution architects as well as humane design practitioners. Through architecting the software to be implemented, then measuring its success via user input, we realize the engineered outcomes and assess for fit, friction, and fiscal responsibility. To the UX Solution Architect, “defects” come via user insights and quality assurance (QA), not from running a debug script. These defects are then classisfied as operational, transactional, and/or process based and measured against industry, psychological, and/or organizational metrics. The clear and communicative execution of this governance resolves to trusted, performant, secure, and accomplished products and services for its intended audiences and the sponsoring business units.

This feels like the right spot to take this. Does it encompass all? Nope. Is there room to debate the attribution to engineering? Yep. All of that and more should be the case for widening the perception of what user experience actually means and does. And from here, that which we believe (or not) about manipulating people and products for some purpose shows itself in what we all might be accountable to, or end up bearing the burden of.

Vision Pro (Demo) Impressions

Mon, 05 Feb 2024 22:59:59 -0400

Decided to do an impromptu trip to the closest Apple Store and demo the Apple Vision Pro. The following are my impressions before, during, and after completing the demo - not edited except to add links from the written/scribbles.

Before the Demo

Took some time to collect my thoughts around whether the Vision Pro is a “new“ thing or evolution of the Mac. Compared initial, extended view/feel of the Vision Pro to the Studio Display and iMac. Interestingly, they are not organized in the exact same area. But that might have to do more with space than anything else. Still, definitely felt that (at least in this space) then Apple is positioning spatial computing as a “space” and not just a “space you go to interact.”

During my time, waiting for the demo, they were four (later five people, a woman who is doing a set up) who at least did a demo. Not too many minutes after I got in saw a person walk out with one.

When looking at the Apple studio display and the Mac Mini Studio, or a Mac Mini, there’s much of a sense of “oh, this is mature and the old way.“ It feels as analog as TV did without a remote in the mid 1980s as remotes became more normative, if that makes sense. The Apple Studio Display is great; but it’s constrained by the physics of putting you into a porthole. Not using your World around you as a canvas. iPad is similar, but not; writing or touching it, you are immediately more connected to the “substance on the canvas.“

During the Demo (Written Afterwards)

It’s a very well orchestrated demo. Every step of it. Can totally see what is being measured – from the retail connections all the way to the ending experience of sending me a video. (actually recap) of it.

Being able to scan my glasses, and have the device ready in less than 10 minutes for a demo is sick/impressive. The shape of how Apple wants it to be like the better parts of a waiting room experience or a car salesman experience isn’t lost on me at all.

Took me all of no time to know how to move windows. Took longer to figure out how my eyes work versus how “focus“ with the eyes is so necessary. Once you know where to find the controls, it’s just a matter of slowing down to get them from “wanting” to get to them.

Panoramic images are great. Spatial images/videos are amazing. The Alicia Keys bit messed with me a bit too many ways. Lighting, sound, etc. That was a very “ooh “moment. Definitely can see how Apple or others could do a heckuva job with tracking, somatic and emotive reactions.

Needs more than media at the demo. Local fare apps that show the best of spatial computing.

Field of view issues until I really tightened it. It only got to be an issue if your eyes move wider than your head – which is natural and unnatural at the same time.

Would love to have played or extended Muse to this during the demo. But… That’s an exploration for another time.

Didn’t convince me to purchase, but does convince me to pay more attention than I was to AR/VR. My existing play might be informing right – just not from the same frame as others… yet.

15 Minutes After the Demo

It’s an impressive and very curated demo. The ease at which I was able to get into understanding how to navigate was not surprising to me, but was to “Langston), the person leading/facilitating. Was so easy and natural to be ambidextrous. Your eyes really are the key here and you instantly feel the lessons from Face ID – from set up all the way to normative use.

Was it heavy on the face? Yes. Almost uncomfortable until you started to move naturally. There wasn’t this same stuttering on the screen that I get when wearing the XREAL Air.

“Compatible“ apps and multimedia are the worst for this. Making 3-D and spatial content should be table stakes for the vision, pro. In fact, if iPadOS doesn’t push more into a more “mini spatial window“ affair, I’d be disappointed. Immersion is a thing, but this will fit more instances where consumption or focus is more needed.

I get it but it’s a shame so much is in a window/frame. Breaking the glasses, where Vision Pro gains the “aha“ moments

Reading in Safari is good but reader mode needs to do immersion. The frame of the web/world around actually breaks the focus to read. Wonder if content-heavy sites or content management systems (or web developers) will pick up on this?

Keyboard and mice – macOS – as assumed defeats by those doing the demo. Which is fine. I am (Moore) iPad, OS native, and the curve and lessons are different yet similar. The home screen interaction was more compelling than much of the rest. Moving/zooming was more compelling than consuming.

Been A Long Time Since Concepts

Tue, 23 Jan 2024 13:35:42 -0400

Have been sitting today thinking about what’s been shared here and how there’s not been any conceptual bits shared in a long time. Part of that definitely due to NDA/NDA-type agreements. But also part of that due to much of the work isn’t about making a new (or refreshed view) of products. It has been about the use of products already in hand - going back to our three-step Goals/Issues/Resources sensemaking framework. And while that’s good, it means there is also a tundra effect which happens. There’s a frozen plateau Avanceé is at, and it is due to not being able to get away from the shape of behaviors teams and orgs don’t have, to what they should be aspiring towards.

In one recent conversation, the subject of Apple Shortcuts alongside GPTs came up. These are both known tools, but do require some investment of time to customize (and sometimes even learn the purpose of). The conversation pointed to some latent abilities which are present in Apple’s low-code programming interface which could help any person reduce friction; but for them, the product itself wasn’t the friction point - it was the bandwidth they didn’t have.

Which takes us back to the concepts which cannot happen.

While it was definitely not the most profitable time for Avanceé, conceptual design and speculative fiction does poke into what “going forward” can spark best. However, those concepts are harder to grasp when folks are missing the bandwidth, reasoning, or even some foundational skills in the tools and process they use currently.

Perhaps… concepts are best left to those who are already sharpened. And “training” belongs to the rest?

Always Refining the Contact Points

Mon, 08 Jan 2024 00:11:13 -0400

Went to a brunch and didn’t have the NFC ring when it came time to swap contact info. But, due to a recent acquisition, do have a backup in the form of a QR code that’s on an NFC business card. However, things weren’t as polished coming from the business card as they are coming from the ring.

So, after doing a little bit of cleanup work with the service that’s behind the QR code (MyTTag) once that brunch was over, am feeling a lot more comfortable with using the business card in a pinch.

But at the same time, a piece of what makes Avanceé a memorable-type of engagement really does come across when the ring is used as a contact point. When “kiss the ring with your phone” comes out, there’s just a neat sense of “oh yea, this is neat” which seems to just elevate convos from “what do you” to “how does that work,” and “can you show me how to…”

Not every one of those engagements have turned into further conversations or direct work. One of the elements also pointed out by using the “backup business card” after brunch was that Avancee services were not easy enough to come to. Unnecessary friction between what is said and what is read isn’t good. Therefore, a change to the About page and expansion into a clearer “Services” page is now the case - along with some tweaks to the foundational “What Do I Do Exactly” post. This should improve converting conversations to enablements.

Still have to work on some other pieces (finalized reports from a few experiments and a few other bits), but some cleanup after that latest encounter does point to feeling better about refining how folks should be able to go from connecting to more.

Avanceé 2023 Review

Tue, 12 Dec 2023 18:30:00 -0400

As has been the case each year since this venture begun, Avanceé looks at what has been shared, contemplated, and experimented towards in the past 12 months. Similar to previous years, bits will be light and brief, though pointing to what might be coming next is also par-the-course.

Previous year reviews can be read at the following links:

Much about this year could be grouped into the themes of “instigating more research and experiments” and “agility in the face of uncertainty.”

Research and Experimentation Investments

Regarding Avancee’s research and experiments, there’s been a significant increase in the investment in various hardware and software assets. Part of this is due to the resonance behind machine learning and augmented/artificial intelligence across the IT space. Part of it also due to re-finding some old sea legs around edge tech and experiences.

In terms of hardware, those investments have looked like:

Brilliant Lab’s Monocle (link)
Everysight Maverick Developer Edition
XReal Air (link)
Flipper Zero (link)
TapXR wireless keyboard

Even managed to evolve the NFC Ring’s use a few times.

Major lessons from the hardware investments has been a need to increase various levels of technical knowledge around implementation tactics, regulatory risks, and the nature of an internet that’s (naturally?) pushing beyond the confines of browsers, applications, and visual-first modalities.

Leveraging and learning about LLMs has actually been a neat wrinkle in the adoption of some of this. Assuming that LLMs as a research assistant might be the better shape of how hardware-oriented projects continue to find themselves of positive ROI here.

The evolution of crowd-funded hardware seems to have found a niche in this exploration. Some, while still using crowd-funding methods/sites, find leveraging local manufacturing, 3D printing, and even smaller international partners, have taken lessons from the stoppages of 2020 to heart - making small batches of hardware in a more resilient manner, and perhaps giving a lens to what larger companies are doing at scale. Avancee hasn’t jumped into these blind, there’s some definite risk. But, for what has been acquired, and what is yet to be delivered, there’s some excitement towards the various canvases compute is turning into.

In terms of software, there’s been increased attention to or the addition of:

OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Developer Tools
XCode
GPT4All and several Local LLMs
Microsoft’s Power Automate
Microsoft CoPilot
Nostr Protocol incl. apps such as Damus, Snort, etc. (link)
Decentralized Identities & Protocols
spatial interfaces and gestural input (Apple’s VisionOS sparked old bits)

Lessons from the hardware are weird. There’s excitement of open source and large company innovations and methods. There’s lots happening. On the other side of that is software. There’s lots happening, but it’s more like a simmering pot of something which might not look anything like the ingredients within.

For example, right now, there’s a distinct blend of “software which expects you to speak its language” (Python, C, Swift, JavaScript, etc.) and “software which as you to refine your own languages” (low and no-code approaches, prompt engineering found in GPTs, etc.). Both are more than capable to make a main course, but what’s able to be created is still up to the imagination of the caster/programmer. That said, the text-heavy emphasis of much of this is something of a discouraging development - we are back to the style of spells and DOS prompts, rather than something a bit more fanticasical IMO.

As mentioned in the hardware section, the alignment of learning new applications and services alongside a local or connected LLM will be a wrinkle to further pursue. Modeling one or several LLMs in this fashion might reveal some inherent weaknesses in one’s own data models, just as much as it would display insights across various applications and a potential fragility to auditing what software is doing when the model or its transformer is IP.

Agility As Currency

The other shape of this year has sat around a significant amount of work in a fractional executive role, embedding humane design behaviors and realizing agility beyond the ceremonies and processes of a project management framework. That’s not to say that practices, doctrines, and eventual behavior change are not a part of what has happened, only that there’s more to agility than these characteristics. The focus to outcomes manifests in the shape of what’s been learned.

In one shape of the observations and lessons of the past year, am firmly more entrenched in the inability for edge technologies and behaviors to make any impact until they either threaten some state of mind, or they offer a significant benefit and opportunity that doesn’t change how that person is viewed within their peer group. For example, offering an automation to improve the bandwidth available during status meetings makes sense, right up until it challenges a (or several) person’s view of the value of the meeting and its ability to make decisions widely known. Introducing technologies and behavior changes encounters this ripple effect outside of the tool or even the imprinted asset itself.

Therefore, some patience, and longer-term measures are needed when agility is needed, but those who have to own it have a longer road to ownership of it.

In a similar view, simplifying the workspace and technology stack continues and challenges what many might consider as “necessary skills” in order to do what is thought of as “work.” The pace at which persons are able to capably use services like CoPilot and ChatGPT are no different than the last decade’s adoption of low/no-code workflow and process management tools, or even the decade previous’ asynchronous and collaborative tools. While it seems the speed to adoption and applicable use is faster - it is not. It is the relevant value, and speed to understand “necessary skills” or “necessary skillful use” which is the hurdle. And many persons are finding they have a signifiant hurdle with sensemaking in light of such movements. While there are a few ways around building this sensemaking muscle individually and corporately, few have the discipline to see it through. Business transformation will be cause of and casuality to an inability to comprehend change - and make sense of the roads to come.

Avanceé’s posture pushing edge technologies has certainly improved understanding the fidelity of what can be achieved with gestural and spatial tool integration. Going forward, these will be more explored - and challenged - as these tools not only disrupt the workspace (iPadOS, Muse, etc.) and the research platform (macOS, GPT4All, etc), but extend it towards a shape of working and connecting which has been used and embraced long before the inception of this initiative. It is assumed (prophesied) smaller teams will also look to take advantage of such lessons, while larger companies will look to invoke more skunkworks projects for learning the pitfalls and accessibility constraints of gestural interfaces before they are met with wider adoption and training.

Speculative Continuances

Have made a “mostly” decent point of not trying to plan out the upcoming year too far. There’s much which happens when coaching and fractional leadership come into play. And yet, there’s a shape of what-can-be permeating a prospective view forward.

No doubt that all things around machine learning, language models, platform decisions, and regulations around the creation, storage, and transformation of data models will be part of the narrative. What is expected to also jump into this is a struggle between those who are able to wield these items to augment themselves into capable arguments for these tools, and those who might wield machine learning’s applications just enough to realize they might already be where many of the transformations portend to be.

Humane, Apple, Dot, and other spatial computing devices will arrive out of the storybooks and movies and into the hands of many before the middle of 2024. There’s gated optimism for the excitement to ignite some rethinking of the purpose of “productivity computer.” But, just like the previous paragraph regarding ML, there will be a struggle between those who will find an ease in a spatial or (nearly) invisible computing construct, and those who will find such efforts highlight where they don’t want to be, or already are but were not ready to launch into that use.

Lastly, there’s always a hope to expand and contract here. As a single-person operation, there’s necessary energy given to what can be handled at one time. Some positive conversations over 2023 provide some hope for efforts in ’24 which might allow Avancee to impact more than direct connections, but not at the cost of time, expense, or quality. Staying tuned here would be the posture advised - or, one can always engage directly and re-engineer your complexities for the future you have been shaped for. Your call. For this space, Avancee means to always be pushing forward.

Thank you for your audience and attention to Avanceé this year. 2024 is advancing, and we look forward to exercising agility and affinity to help current and new clients re-engineer complexity.

Forward Thinking

Tue, 17 Oct 2023 11:01:48 -0400

A bit of the things am chewing on after a few conversations (even in one day) regarding taking expertise and turning it into a package of courses - teaching people how to think is a path forward in the knowledge industry where the tools are being transformedd and augmented faster than many can keep up.

I see some of these and think it’s worthwhile for those who can definitely shape sessions and become a distinct lighthouse in this age. Whether it ends up as necessary credentials, or just another signal is almost immaterial. In this space, a lot of bubbles will rise to the top and only a few stick to the rim of the glass.

Nevertheless, being forward thinking seems to be better characteristic of what it means for knowledge fields going forward. Not so much that they can create the future, but they have frameworks to understand how to work with the things they might create, or that others might create. The shape of work, for this group, really does reach back into something other than collaborative work methods (wrote on this a while back). And yet, it also seeks to anchor into the “old ways” of rhetoric and semiotics.

Of the joys which comes from using Muse gets expressed and exposed in this manner. A framework we coach here is to “always take notes.” Many people don’t know their own distinct voice in the midst of listening to others. Notes, and a practice of going back to them to hear yourself, creates a view of the past and a framework to understand the near-present. It doesn’t mean that you will be ahead of every change. But, you will have a posture which might be a bit more forward than others - some of which who’d come to you to learn how to think forward in a realm they ar4 no more certain of living in.

All the Personal Computing One Needs

Sun, 13 Aug 2023 11:15:30 -0400

Sitting in a cafe, thinking about what’s happening with the hardware side of computing and wonder how much longer before we get to just having these “matchbox-sized devices” as all the computing that’s needed?

Granted, neither the AirPods Pro or Monocle are able to do much themselves right now. But, local learning models plus “connectivity when needed” (local-first approaches) could really take personal computing and make it truly personal. Even with the various ways folks are using their devices in the cafe (laptop and over the ear headphones, a person just on their mobile, and another using their mobile alongside books/hand-written notes, there’s this sense that the screen really needs to be more malleable. And even then, interaction needs to be less a rule, and more of a “feel.”

If there really is a problem with the interface, then yes, this kind of transformation might beget not just a different relationship with the technologies, but also ourselves. What does that mean in the short-term? Means we deal with the social juggling of what is and isn’t permissible. We juggle with the intensity of being connected to and affirmed by bells we might not have a full understanding about. It may simply mean we just hold onto more than we should… because we aren’t sure of what we really should be holding on to.

Have found the term “essentialist” coming up into more conversations lately. Not minimalist - reducing to the the very smallest amount - nor a maximalist - using all that is able to be used within one’s bounds - but merely being able to sit with what’s essential. This changes in each moment, in each state. Sometimes it is having the depths of plans in place for organizational stability. Other times it is being ok with the surprise of plans changing moment by moment. Having what’s needed for the moment is the essential property. And this requires living in the moment, not supposing for something larger or smaller. When looking at the AirPods Pro and Monocle sitting there, it asks the question - what is essential for this very spot you are in? There’s something altogether invisible yet transparent about the tech in this. How we respond dictates living with what is essential, or making essential all things.

This construct is harder still for the teams and individuals being challenged with establishing firm steps for an unfamiliar future. If all that was needed could be put into a matchbox, and hidden in/near our pockets, how would our perception of the possible change? How would our posture towards the present be affirmed or handicapped? Are we comfortable then with what we have? Or, are our needs better contained within the thing that’s familiar, and less under our control?

Image via personal Flickr

Question of Value

Tue, 25 Jul 2023 13:30:47 -0400

What’s the value of creativity or any type of manual information work during this age where the tools for work moves faster towards network-automated transformations? It would appear that the phase of connected work accelerated by “asynchronous, collaboration“ has really moved “slow curiosity and remixing“ to the edges of what it means to do knowledge-based work. One can argue this is merely a ripple, or an implication of the tools we have. That eventually, every tool evolves in use until certain parts of friction are reduced to “normal”. And we are seeing this now as it relates to asynchronous information collection, remixing, and distribution- that is every application and service whose premise is to be yet another feed and dashboard. There’s probably a new axiom to this- “enterprise products evolve until they become a form of Pinterest with chat boxes.”

So then, what is the value of those things which are not so easily collected, measured, or remixed?

It probably comes down to “what is the value that is most valuable.“ Within the information space much of the conversation and the activity about productivity revolves around this concept of value. Doing something because it is valuable. Doing a measurement because the measurement is able to be valued. Or having a series of components and products whose ultimate worth is declared in value. Now, the question of “whose value“ is where things may swing from one end to the other economically, psychologically, socially, and technologically. But it is always about “value.”

The possession of ascribing value to whatever it means to do work seems to live in the hands of everyone who does the work. But, as we see from the current Screen Actors Guild strike, value is actually not in the hands of those who are creating, it’s actually in the hands of those who invest in the creating and distribution of what has been made. Or rather, it has been tilted there due to a social pact. The agreement is that one party creates and another party distributes (and potentially another party invests in both). Anything that increases the apparent ability to reduce friction in distribution, and maximize any type of investment and creation by doing so is propped up. There is nothing to distribute of nothing is created. However what’s created has no value unless it is distributed. Hence, the swing in “value.”

The literal limitation of human performance has a cap in value according to this view. And every workers union that arises, admits to this disconnect between the value of those who are doing the creating and the investment of those who are enabling creative works to be distributed.

The limits of the creative human performance…

Maybe we do not want to admit that there are limits to the reach of our creativity. That, no matter what it is, that we create, we are ultimately relying on items that are outside of our own control to extend, this ability for that creative thing to have an impact that goes beyond us. The limit of human performance is an admission that we cannot reach into the universe as far as we would like. That we cannot live longer than the time that we are given without the assistance of someone or something else. Admitting that we are within this limit, either empowers us to find ways to maximize it (creativity) or causes those who might have realized it sooner to deprive others of discovering this limitation (manipulating agency).

The value of using non-automated tools for productivity is an acceptance of the limits of (and pleasures to be found within) certain/some human capabilities.

The question the value seems to ultimately relate to what we might say is a willingness to accept what we are, the things that we can, or cannot change, and then exist within the difference. To not except, or to make an exchange on that, may mean there is some exchange we are making with a condition we instinctively know we cannot truly overcome. If others agree with this exchange, cultures and ecosystems are forged. If not, wars and religions are forged. It would seem, we are questioning our place in this temporal plane while also navigating this exchange. Navigating this acceptance (or not), of a limit we ultimately do not overcome.

Don’t Need A Controller with That

Mon, 17 Jul 2023 08:00:00 -0400

Contentious opinion? Apple and Humane aren’t wrong… you do not want a controller or other device as a necessary input tool when using AR/VR/MR devices.

Towards the end of June, jumped again into the AR/VR thing with adding the XReal Air to the Avancee device lab. This is really an interesting device, and not just because “Apple has entered the AR fray with the VIsion Pro.” The XReal Air actually does a pretty decent job mirroring an iOS/iPadOS display, or extending a macOS display (up to three virtual desktops). The clarity is ok (am waiting for prescription inserts). And aside from a 3ft/1m cable, it does make a lot of sense towards making the best use of limited space if one needs several screens around them in order to do some level of work.

Where the Air fails (for me), is in the area of control. As has been spoken about a few times, am a fan of the Tap Strap 2 wireless keyboard. Such a novel concept, and really should be better utilized personally (waiting for a firmware update to a technical issue discovered recently). The Tap is often used alongside the iPad Pro, but on the non-dominant hand. In the dominant hand is the Apple Pencil. Between the both of those, and dictation, much about interacting with the iPad can be done quickly and easily - at least when I am not rusty in typing with the Tap. The Tap also has a neat “air mouse mode” where it can emulate a mouse by simply pointing at the screen and then doing a few gestures. Suffice to say, one can actually do a fairly decnet job of breaking free of the confines of the size of a screen with this… until you cannot.

The XReal Air does make for a decent motion to break free from structured and un-movable windows. And (am assuming) the Tap air mouse feature will enable it to go a few places further - at least on macOS. Am kind of uncertain about the extended screen play with iPadOS, though there is some experience using it in this fashion with the Apple Magic touchpad and a portable monitor. That said, when confronted with this perspective, you quickly find there many more senses we should be using on these canvases. This is where Apple and Humane have made the right call in letting our physical selves be the controllers, and the “windows of the tech” bending to us, versus the other way around.

Take a look again at the Humane TED Talk demo. Notice what is being used as the canvas? The hand, the ear, and speech. Take another look at the intro video for Apple’s Vision Pro. Notice how the hands and eyes are the controller. Notice how soundscapes and vision-scapes are postured as the canvas, and controllable. There’s something just right about being able to touch, control, smell, taste, etc. within your world. It might very well be that we are finally seeing a breaking away from an infantile slice of computing we’ve been doing since the introduction of the GUI, mouse, and even the keyboard.

XReal used to (?) offer a second device, called the Light which does do hand-tracking, and a few other nifty things. Am thinking this might be a correct route as a baseline for these “glasses-led devices.” And for a simple reason, we know how to use our hands. We know how to fix our gaze. And - barring any kind of bias towards normalizing those, allowing people of all abilities and modalities to interact to computational canvases within the world they are already familiar.

It really is a shame that Apple was not more forthcoming with the various (hidden gestures) on iPadOS. There have been (and are) so many ways to use your iPad without needing to get to context menus, with many application even extending that to do some pretty neat stuff. Kinds of things which makes you wonder if Apple has been setting up the removal of controllers or “UI chrome” for a longer time than we might suspect.

You don’t need to learn how to control your hands except for once in your life. You refine how and what you pick up, control, put down, etc. You learn tender touch, versus forceful. You learn how to grab big objects, and [how to embrace your other senses to make vision more than just what you see with your eyes](Take Off Your Glasses And See: How to Heal Your Eyesight and Expand Your Insight https://a.co/d/5epTUTn).

Perhaps, you shouldn’t need a controller to leverage what a computer might offer (note how this doesn’t say “use a computer”). And it is very possible that we are finally at the place where hardware and software is ready to agree with the reality of who we have always been. At least, it seems Apple and Humane are in agreement with some of that.

Cutting Through the Noise

Mon, 10 Jul 2023 08:00:00 -0400

Apparently, I’m getting older. And saying that because more often than not these days, am looking for areas where it’s quiet. Or more specifically, where the noted decibel ranges somewhere under 50 dB, and that’s not a bad thing, we know there’s a connection regarding noise, pollution, and our ability to be productive. And then, we all know about taking times to meditate, and how a consistent focus towards meditating adds years to your life (almost literally). So, I do believe all of us are trying to cut through the noise of life. Not so much to find something quieter. But to find something landing in a space of a more acceptable sound. A means of flowing with life, instead of fighting against it.

However, there are some moments where we can’t just find quiet. Where we have to either generate cancelling sound ourselves, or find a way to cut through the noise. For many clients and friends who are in the job market, they are most attuned to this point. There are many more people than usual looking for jobs (in knowledge based fields). And, in addition to the increased number of stated open roles, there is increased friction for posting and responding to them. There’s increased friction in interviews (frequency, pacing, requirements, etc). There is increased friction all over the place. The data supports that most new jobs come from the people you know, or those second and third-degree connections. In these days and times there’s just more noise when looking to be compensated for your skills and talents. So how does one cut through the noise?

A mentor and I often talk about “getting real with ourselves.“ Where, we are not just saying things to puff ourselves up, but getting to the base reality of ourselves in the moment. If that means we are tired, then we do not over extend. If it means that we have capacity to be there for a friend, then we’d be present with them (and not also sidetracked by being on our connected devices.). Part of the activity held with those persons who are looking to move forward towards a new role, a promotion, or a better work experience is to help them get real with themselves. To define “what is actually the reason why you wake up every day,” and “why this activity must happen so that you have value to reach for after you do wake?“

For some, this journey towards cutting through the noise of their own life is right, with even more questions and more noise. We find with some of us that we don’t have the ability to even communicate what it is that we would like to do because we are encumbered by the language of where we are or where we came from. For some of us, we have a superhero complex. (insert the picture of Edna saying “no capes“) for some of us, we actually do know what it is that we would like to do, but we exist in some other reality, where we have to do something else, instead of putting our energies in our time towards what we really want to do, and what would be more fulfilling if we were to go ahead and do it. Cutting through the noise, requires a level of discipline and faith that requires from us to be quiet with ourselves. And after that moment of quiet to find the type of action, that leads us to evaluating, not the future, but the end of the day, as being “one step closer to our goal, or expected end.“

Some of the steps for cutting through the noise means to establish or reestablish boundaries spiritually, emotionally, mentally, socially, or even within one’s family. Some of the steps for cutting through the noise needs small disciplines, things that can be repeated on a daily basis, which lead to large gains overtime . Some of the steps for cutting through the noise doesn’t look like steps of cutting through the noise at all, because it means adding a voice where it wasn’t present before. Or adding experience, knowledge, and understanding, where it was forsaken. Cutting through the noise is not a one time event. It is an active, engaging type of behavior. One where you both bolster yourself, while also leveraging your environment to uplift (or calm down).

And what happens after you have cut through the noise? Well, the shape of the universe is best described in the word that says “entropy.“ What exactly does that need to mean for you? Probably something along the lines of finding contentment in whatsoever state that you are in while also contending for a better future for yourself, your family, and your community.

image by Mister Ash via Flickr

XReal and Spatial Computing Thoughts

Mon, 26 Jun 2023 07:00:00 -0400

Went down some rabbit hole looking at VR and AR devices and got back around the XReal (formerly NReal) lineup. Besides the usual, “need to consider prescription lenses bit, there was actually some good commentary found not just about the tech, but what folks now understand that they want having seen Apple’s Vision Pro. Being so long in this valley between using a tablet as a canvas, gestural input devices, and “there’s more to AR/VR/MR than sight, “ it was helpful to read and listen to XReal’s most recent commentary and what it shapes for next steps in this space.

What is spatial computing? Well, it’s really a means of taking the computer canvas or screen off of the two-dimensional display that we are used to, and adding depth (and sometimes texture) to the experience of interacting with elements (buttons, windows, text, media, etc). This can mean doing things such as having a virtual desktop or canvas placed on top of your organize/temporal world. This can also mean to export your visual and audio sense into a reality just composed of this virtual universe. (if you will make you immersed in a virtual universe, while physically, you are still cognizant of being in the present).

Currently, the best experiences that happen here are either highly sensual (to get that out of the way), or highly interactive (games, some levels of productivity, computing, etc.). Much of this is because we only seem to think of computing inside of a few linear constraints. However, if we were to not separate the use of these virtual interfaces from the use of our organic/biological interfaces, they may become something different in terms of an interaction model. And this is what is prescribed to with AR and MR (mixed reality) - or as StudioD puts it, AI as a belief system is very much a shape of what this becomes.

Some of us may bristle at this mesh of biological, psychological, and spiritual realities. And yet, there seems to be a growing need, or maybe even desire, for people to reconnect with themselves, and every nature that they are part of. Having these artificial boundaries of separation (in terms of a computer, we see these levels of separation as the input devices, the size of a monitor, the speed at which a computer functions, etc.) is almost separating us from our whole being. Am I proposing that spatial computing gets closer to this reality of some type of symbiosis? No. But it’s not that hard to believe, or even conceive that some elements of this aspect of computing may indeed invite those kind of united experiences, some of which we don’t really have a language for (just yet). Experiences previous generations have explored thru chemically-induced means… or that almost all experience at various points of a night’s sleep.

Had this thought of the XReal, the Sentien Audio, and the Tap keyboard all pointing to this shape of computing where the space and tension we have around us matters more than what’s inside of the screen, or even the borders of the application being used. To continue to point on this pushes computing into a dispute with the world around us - have we put borders around something which didn’t have what we’ve managed to manufacture around them?

Frustrations of Un-Optimization

Mon, 05 Jun 2023 09:00:00 -0400

In the shape of Avanceé, there’s the aforementioned challenge of the coaching down-slope, but also there’s that of other frustrations. Not speaking of things such as tech/tools not working, or even of slower-than-desired answering of questions. No, probably the hardest frustration to deal with is that of un-optimized workspaces. Where there’s an ask to do/be more, but upon nothing more than a cursory assessment, addition isn’t needed. Optimization is. This usually means some level of retraining - and depending on the audience, this can be somewhat… frustrating.

While setting up the new lab, this aspect of being frustrated about not having something optimized has come up pretty often. This lab is supposed to have a portion of what would be considered normal computing (small desktop, monitor, mouse and keyboard). The lab also has a few things that are not so normal. (a few hacking tools, some alternative input devices, and means to be able to log into the desktop without ever needing a screen). However, on the road to setting this up to work in such a way that invite it to be alive, the workspace is not really all that optimized. There are shades of computing which looks like the 1990s sitting on the desk next to shades of computing from 50 years from now. Pieces of software do not connect as easily as they should, and therefore, a workflow that had intentions of being futuristic, think something like Star Trek the next generation. This software is more like the 90s never left, and attention to detail has taken a backseat to “power user functionality.“ It’s quite frustrating.

These kind of things can also be inferred in projects. You might notice it on your team when you are not using the software suite or workflow service in the way that it could be best used (for example, saving local copies of documents onto your machine versus using cloud services and contact management features). You might design a product to act in a particular fashion, but find that your primary user base is doing something you totally are against or didn’t see coming. Or it could be that the Alcom from using a particular product or service it’s not something that’s easy to measure, if you will, you’re doing things that are not by the book even though you’re getting intended results. These kind of things can be quite frustrating.

So what then do you do?

There’s a piece of the entrepreneurial journey here which says that you should just go ahead and persist. That you should take these lumps and observe them, not as a wall, but as a challenge. And sometimes this can be true. it takes time to mature your workspace, it takes time to orient teams, it takes time to change an organization such that things no longer look like there is intentional friction. There’s also a part of the journey where you have to be OK with giving up, closing shop, if you will. You went down a particular road and it really was not the good destination. And so you move forward no more. You stop, do a U-turn, and go about some other path to a newly desired end. If you can successfully make that change in your mindset and your behaviors, the frustrations of things not being optimized can now become fuel, for what allows you to optimize a new set of circumstances.

It’s in the space where you find that creative spark, and you touch on that thing which enables you to answer the challenges of your marketing opportunities, your life, opportunities, or even simply just getting your research lab in the best posture for advancing…

Coaching’s Down-Slope

Tue, 30 May 2023 07:31:42 -0400

Much about coaching others seems to be setting people and teams on the upswing. But, you’ve also got to deal with the reality of breaking down or the down-slope. This can be when you’ve made the decision to shift strategy and tactics, and it means significant behavior changes (aka, change management in many contexts today). It means when the coach also has to take steps away to avoid burn-in and burn-out. This can also be when you are in the squishy valley after a change has happened, but the results aren’t yet present. The reality of coaching is that the valleys are just as traversed as the mountains.

You have to be honest with the process. Meaning, you have to understand that change and growth are a process. And this process includes breaking down as well as building up. Breaking down bad behaviors means measuring where you didn’t, and questioning what you wouldn’t. More than trusting the process, you’ve got to communicate it - for example, when companies modernize by adopting agile principles, they often forget that being agile doesn’t mean meetings and ceremonies, it means agility in the face of data and challenges. This means sharpening communicative skills is part of agility, just as it might be to adopt kanban and scrum boards.

Told one group about the phases of growth which happen with growing companies. They were surprised at the frankness of what happens at each stage of employee count, not having considered the down-moments alongside the growth ones. It was here we had to begin working on their expectations, and communicating the, with the intention of clarity, not the expectation of control. When the group gathered themselves around clarity, they were able to better communicate harder decisions at specific periods of growth. And in one case, they even questioned their original intentions for growth. This is accepting the down-slope, and letting it create inertia for the eventual upswing (for them, that happened).

Do you have an expectation of growth, but a realization in this moment that it feels more like things are breaking down? Have you listed or communicated your expectations and intentions, and are you looking at them from a posture of clarity or control? Are you honest with those expectations and intentions? Or, do you need help discovering clarity in the moment?

If so, we might be able to help. Reach out for a quick chat, and maybe Avanceé might be able to help you find momentum for your next upswing.

Leaving Screens, Not Canvases

Mon, 22 May 2023 22:18:11 -0400

One of the things which most bugs about some of the way computing is looked at is the focus on there needing to be some “work” or “productivity” involved. There’s got to be a keyboard, there’s got to be someone making money on one or all ends of whatever is happening - even if all that is happening is someone looking at their own notes and scribbles. Part of the narrative am wondering about shifting is how non-screen computing might reshape such perceptions and expectations, leaving those who wish to be seen “computing” as something of a analog reality to the (invisible, connected) reality of not needing a screen.

The Disappearing Computer: An Exclusive Preview of Humane’s Screenless Tech by Imran Chaudhri, TED 2023

This is what makes devices like Humane’s upcoming so intriguing. It isn’t so much the taking away of the screen, but the shift in what it means to have computing (transformation and calculation) and be connected (communicative). And while the demo shows a novelty of the world thru the lens of those who can travel, who are learned in other languages, and might be (at their base) very curious, it doesn’t show the shape of computing many attribute to the now - taking, remixing, consuming, and responding. A very interesting question for Humane (and even the more familiar Apple and Google Wear watches, Sentien Audio and other connected headsets, and maybe even the VR/AR hardware space) is “what canvas do they enable even if they leave the screen?”

Personally, am a big proponent of only traveling with a connected watch and tablet. There’s only a need for a screen when there’s something about the canvas worth exploring - for example, the drafting of this piece. And while voice/speech technologies can broach some of this, it’s the canvas, the palette, and even the brush which we aren’t really as comfortable as leaving screens for. Can that change?

A piece of the imagination of AR glasses/headsets is not leaving the palette and brush behind when the screens are removed. This keeps the definition of “computer” intact. One can be productive, and such productivity can be measured and compensated, However, such a burden feels like work - sounds like work - because adding weight to one’s experience is work. No one wants to add work, until that work shows definitive value beyond what someone might lose in time, agency, compensation, or connection. I don’t think AR glasses/headsets are the right exchange of value, no matter how well designed they are. Glasses, while a fashion accessory, are still an accessory. Accessories which don’t add to one’s reputation and agency (prescription and sunglasses address a literal handicap), are work most don’t want.

Should there be other shapes to the accessories then which are around us? Sure. I’d love to think that Humane’s push here makes it possible thinner portable screens which can take ambient radio signals, and authenticate with that connected device into screens and canvases. I can see styli/pens which don’t just write, but also can take in audio - storing or transferring to a core device for a personal notebook/reminder space. Can even see new shapes of connections - bands given at an event which connect to one another, but only after they get permission from the Humane/Pebble Core/etc like device to do so (instant sharing of tickets, images, and maybe even cross -licensed with the performer).

There is something more which can be done with canvases, and it would be worth it to rediscover that shape. We can leave the screens behind in some cases to find this. But, it would also mean suspending the reality that compute always means some kind of work. Perhaps, the spiritual dimension to invisible computing comes into play here - asking us to be less like the manager of creation, and more like it’s co-creator? And then… wonder what the picture could do?

A Lab and A Future

Mon, 15 May 2023 13:30:33 -0400

Most things shared here are small notes and threads amongst topics others are talking about. But what about when others aren’t talking? Well, we are creating a research and (experimentation) development and laboratory of sorts.

For a long time, the primary means of being able to explore and exploit the edges of what is happening has relied on reading, low-budget tech acquisitions, and many friendly conversations (so many thanks over the years) enabling a lot of smart and forward-thinking items. There’s also been some severe limitations and exits (memories again of that mobile web server, and most recently Helm email server). Part of that is an intentional handicap of sorts - a preference to use mobile operating systems for almost 25 years now has led to a different perspective of languages and structure - noting the trends, not following them. And yet inside of all of this there’s sometimes not enough steps forward. So for 2023, Avanceé is building something of a research lab.

No, this isn’t something like acquiring property on the edge of the city, and making use of too many parking spots for the actual work that’s taking place. But there is an analogy of sorts happening with an earlier acquisition of the M2 Mac Mini as the center for this research and development environment. From this, exploring what does and doesn’t work in terms of direct and gestural input interfaces. There’s intrigue to what has been evolving in terms of browsers and application platform development. Tentatively, that is. The hardware is here and there is still other work to be done.

Recently, a second Mac Mini has joined the fray, and it too will be a part of this research and development effort. It’s intention is not exactly clear at the time of this writing. But, there’s a lot of cool stuff in regards to localized machine learning (LLM) and data modeling, which really is the right direction forward as this effort stays giving solid advice or insight to those persons who look to Avanceé as something of a canary.

There are a few more imaginations that are not spoken of immediately, which remain a part of the experiments helping shape this effort forward. Yes, many of the interactions from this initiative output as coaching and advisory support. But, the genesis for those activities comes from having a place to experiment, converse, and invent new canvases. Outcomes from having such a space gives opportunity to shape a future others may be able to partake in, or even figure out roads which didn’t deserve to be traveled at all. After all, what’s a lab and some experiments without figure it out if somethings really don’t work?

Agility and Shape Things

Mon, 06 Feb 2023 10:07:52 -0400

It’s often a topic sits in the mind long enough to become something to write about. This is again one of those times. Conversations reigniting agile (the project management methodology) have often found itself in direct opposition to UX (governance, research, etc) once again. And this isn’t wrong. The two don’t get along in part due to a misappropriation of what agility means. If we see “agility” in a context apart from “Agile Management”, we might be better able to understand why some design-focused folks seem to run their own path. But, also why there’s hope to get many of us on one accord - embracing a perception of the experience and expectations of the consumed thing such that we communicate a clear and necessary message.

On Design and Agility

Design is communication. An effort to remove unwanted friction in the hopes of allowing some valuable quantity to come thru for someone’s benefit. Bad design is easily recognized as such because it adds friction - physically, mentally, financially, psychologically, etc. Good design doesn’t even seem like it’s good because done too well, it speaks to subconscious perceptions more than conscious awareness. Good design considers what it amplifies, and seems to also have ripples indirectly benefiting other parts. Design communicates. And what it communicates is regarded as “experience.”

Agility can be a sign of good design. For process and product development teams, good design speaks to value for several parties:

for the team there’s clarity of task and purpose
for the team there’s ease to communicating with one another and key stakeholders
for stakeholders agility reduces the burden of risk
for the developed product or process, agility might also offer a lens of understanding that not every context could be delivered, but was hopefully considered

Establishing agility within an organization often starts with developing some kind of shared language, and then turning that shared language into a vision. The vision captures the capabilities of the team on their best days, and the realization of some kind of goal by the consumer and/or stakeholder. This vision, when committed to, empowers a type of doctrine or discipline towards that end state. Agreement to each step taken to get there strengthens this relationship to agility. While disagreements don’t necessarily mean you won’t get there, maturity in agility allows disagreements to focus doctrines and disciplines, often building on top of the shared language.

Spoken like this, an “agile” approach within software development teams might sound like it spurs the best ways forward. However, it often doesn’t. Don’t get me wrong, delivery happens. However, agility is a bit harder to come by. If it were a matter of just building stuff, then maybe yea. But, we often find ourselves looking at the experience of delivered products not from a “delivery” perspective, but from the “experiential” one.

On Experience and Expectations

User experience (UX) is a practice which enables teams to realize their adherence to the expectations of those consuming or using a product or service. This practice also gives stakeholders (the business who sponsored the product, in addition to the audience assessing its risk) a means to determine and test their hypothesis and their investments versus those same expectations. Often, folks contort or confuse UX alongside its similarity-named user interface design (user interaction design or UI), but these are not the same, even if some of the expectations are shared. Or, to say these more directly.

UI = user’s interfaces (aspects of a system/platform a person interacts with to change system state)
UX = user’s experiences (the governance towards, and the analytics supporting, what the person using a system or platform defines as their experience as good, bad, or otherwise)

UX includes UI, but good UX doesn’t mean good UI

Practices and methods for interfaces (UI) includes what a platform is capable of, and thru its design, what it will not support. In the delivery of a product or process using this guidance, a product will behave according to expectation, and even “fall away from conscious record” while it is being used. The interface will feel intuitive. This is a part of what agile teams are able to deliver at the baseline of any product or process. Agility while building interfaces allows the team to address ways of interacting which might not have been originally part of any specification.

Analysis and guidance for experiences (UX) includes the expectations (and manipulations) of those using a platform, regardless of how it was designed. Those expectations aren’t just about interacting with the platform, but the value it creates or diminishes because of it. A system might use familiar buttons, text prompts, and layouts, but if the content is difficult to read, or information prompts happen within unexpected moments during some workflow, then the system will be regarded as having a negative experience. Much about human factors engineering has been written, tested, and validated towards patterns which lead to positive or negative experiences. Physical and non-physical factors are accounted for. Agility enables teams to pivot quickly to analyze and maybe understand the experiences, but designing affordances takes a different approach and requires more than just “throw it out there.”

Move Fast and Shape Things

Design and Agile are two different and not always complimentary methods of communicating. Both draw on individuals and teams having “agility” as a characteristic, but pull on “value” differently. When we move fast as designers, we are hopefully taking the lessons and responsibilities of what’s needed, and making clear only that which is essential. On the other hand, when we are shaping things, we are deliberately taking the posture of the audience who will experience the thing. We aren’t just considering their view as our own, but also what it means to be a conscious reminder of “something valuable.”

Now, can a team develop the agility to “shape” more than “deliver?” Yes. We think so. It’s part of the coaching and methods shared through this effort in fact. Yet, this is hard. Change doesn’t happen quickly, nor does it happen willingly. Design-focused folks need to “show, share, and (then) tell” more than they are used to. Their language has to be “what’s in it for (the stakeholders),” not just “we do this because it is the way (design is done).” Agility for design teaches an ear towards those consuming a product or service, while openly acknowledging the constraints of the product, market, stakeholder, or methods. It doesn’t tolerate all things, but vocalizes when unnecessary friction adds unwanted risk. Agility goes ahead of delivery, clearing the road for the hopeful reception of a product/process which meets or exceeds expectations.

Design has to move fast in this era. Especially when that design is software-focused. However, being “agile” shouldn’t mean bending design to the doctrines and disciplines of the methodology’s current state. It should mean being capable of communicating the value of the audience’s perspective, and shaping that which enables that perspective to be applied to the very reason the product or process exists. It means design can have agility because experience and expectations aren’t things to be shaped, but things to be learned, heard, and honored. Design’s agility, in this view, is always humane.

Post-Twitter Discourse

Mon, 23 Jan 2023 20:55:11 -0400

There’s a lot of possibilities (Mastadon, Discord, Gas, Snap, etc). But, if you know me, I tend to be a tick ahead. Not one to jump on anything, am quite deliberate with play and experiments. Often times nearing the edge of what’s popular for a moment before it dies, am sometimes also behind the crowd.

So what/where is seen beyond Twitter? Besides more folks doing Substack/LinkedIn/email newsletters?

This

The protocol behind Damus is what’s most appealing. But, unlike a lot of projects which build on nascent protocols, Damus has shown some decent attention to overall IA/UX. It’s not the future. Nostr is.

Nostr is what seen as a possible future because when attached to the lessons from Twitter, one is offered the appeal of discovery and curiosity. These are the ingredients which seem most common to “whatever catches on.”

The idea of relays (a hybrid-federated network model) feels where the global social media landscape should be evolving to. Weirdly, this is more or less proving the pre-Microsoft Skype vision as quite correct. If Nostr and apps/services on top of it takes off, then such a hub-and-spoke model may validate one of the early tenants of the internet (resilience) while also offering the benefits of where it has evolved (platforms which extend human capacities to connect at their own speed).

Reviewing Avanceé’s 2022 Research and Experiments

Thu, 22 Dec 2022 19:27:19 -0400

Around this time of the year, we revisit some of the research and experiments which have been a part of the ongoing development of Avanceé. Often talked to lightly, but frame a good bit of what becomes the insights and lessons shared with (incoming and potential) clients. The following is a small summary of some of these.

For a lens into past experiments:

All caught up? Good. Let’s get into what’s been happening in 2022.

Hold-Over Experiments from 2021

The beginning of the year started looking at some of these experiments as a means to drum up some business. But as the year has gone on, some of these have either gone into a further hiatus, or become something else entirely.

Building A Secure Store/Wallet via McLear’s Omni NFC Ring

One of the longest projects. This one really hasn’t moved very much further. But it’s possible that there’s some light at the end of the tunnel here. Or at least there’s an inner change to which it can begin to accelerate for 2023. All I can say is, stay tuned.

Reshaping the Business Card with McLear’s NFC Ring

On the other hand, an older experiment came back and has been a pretty novel success. One of the things that it seems that was able to be galvanized with the release of lockdown measures has been closer communication. And the fist bump, or in this case, fist to phone, has proven to be a pretty neat instigator to conversations and subsequent business.

Bitcoin, Ethereum, and IFTS Domains

One would think that this area has been fairly quiet, into some extent that’s true. Most of the work around alternative currencies has been around research and understanding the space, not so much in terms of investing. However, there’s still a presence here as the building blocks that are being pulled apart right now seem to be building towards what some are using in machine, learning, and quantum technologies that are upcoming. So for here, we are just staying put for the moment.

Helm Personal Email Server

An absolutely marvelous idea. To be able to host your own email, files, etc. It’s a shame that the server is going down, well, the service that manages the gateway is. At the end of 2022, this will no longer be something actively worked on. But there is a Reddit for self-hosted tech; there’s a chance that something could pick up here.

Newly Started in 2022

New 2022 experiments (research) are a bit slower in pacing, but more deliberate in lessons.

ESOS Payment Ring

After many years of waiting and looking, finally found a payment ring available in the USA. For the most part, not disappointed. The ESOS Ring makes a lot of sense as a “carrying cash” kind of tech. Really would have liked to have finished some concepts that addressed the app. But, that, and using it, will have to wait until their next version - the Gulf of Mexico took my ring for a swim.

Sentien Audio

A big fan of what happens around audio interfaces, was excited to take delivery of Sentien Audio’s bone conduction headset. Though not as far in front of the market as it was when announced, one thing very much nailed has been the battery life. Officially now the “workday headset,” am enjoying the mix of quality felt with Apple’s AirPods Pro, but solid gestural control lessons from the Bragi Dash.

Muse for Teams

If you’ve been following for a while, the use of Muse is no surprise. This fall, got a chance to begin using a collaborative branch of Muse, called Muse for Teams, and it’s been an insightful look at how this application expands to collaboration between different types of people. The team I’m using this with has given lots to think about regarding this type of software. And overall, the shape of spatial interfaces might be one where augmented tooling has the best chance to positively improve the human connection with knowledge-based workflows.

Artificial/Augmented Intelligence and Machine Learning

Lots of different and interesting action happening here. Nothing specific to speak on yet in terms of tools. But, will state that it is increasingly difficult to see knowledge work that doesn’t include some competency with these methods, or architecting the tools which use them. In a very real sense, it will take folks who can think in focused manners to be able to grow with these methods and tools.

Micro.Blog versus Mastodon and Others As Twitter Replacement

And probably the most popular topic, #LeavingTwitter. There’s lots of people running here and other places for a Twitter replacement. And truly speaking, there’s viability with Mastodon, Post, Substack, Pateron, etc as options. That said, much like what had been done with Twitter, am taking a step backward and looking at things from the federated blogosphere. And from here, maybe something neat will be the next space(s) to relay-through

Humane Wearables Chat with Everett Advisors

Probably better than the experiments was a means of sharing the reasons for these, and the ways I shape Avanceé, through an 80min chat with Sean Everett of Everette Advisors. Check out this chat for a bit more about some of the aforementioned experiments, and some hints to what’s next.

Thought Experiment: Excitement in an OS

Tue, 18 Oct 2022 21:22:30 -0400

The other week, a tweet asked:

Are you a computer software professional and unhappy with your workstation OS If a brand new OS shipped tomorrow, what about it would make you excited?

This was such an excellent topic, that it went into the drafts last week, and some work towards some more thoughts and perspectives.

More Depth in Inputs

Going away from the scribbles to usually use to describe this. And yet, a visor for such a “OS which would make me excited” actually lives closer to being less dependent on typing, and more on scribbling, multitouch interactions, and less reliance on a screen (more on audio and pressure/feel). This was explored in a past piece looking at dictation as part of the input behavior.

What of Hardware?

For “current art’s sake,” the hardware would start with a device in the shape of Apple’s iPad Pro or Xiaomi Mix Fold 2. The aim here is that the screen needs to get out of the way by only being the way. There would be only one button (power), however the edges of the device would be programmable for gestural controls at top, middle, and bottom of the device. The OS would know the orientation and adjust the “buttons” accordingly, rather than acting like a physical device where the buttons remain and the user needs to remap their focus. A responsive platform in hardware, with software responding elegantly, feels like excitement is ripe to blossom.

Software Is Focus of This

But, back to the excitement of the OS. First off, it would be a first-party touch interface. Second party would be stylus input, and similar to Apple’s iPad-Pencil implementation, the screen would know the difference between screen and finger, and allow controls accordingly. Third-party input would be voice. The OS wouldn’t be usable with indirect input devices like keyboards or mice, it would allow it, but it would feel abnormal. Going back to the touch/gestural interface, I’d see taking from Ink & Switch’s work which led to Muse as the route here.

This would be sufficient-enough to excite. But, an OS has to enable more. It has to be a platform on which markets can be invented or fostered.

To that end, the other part of the OS would follow what we’ve seen from projects like Sketch2Code, where sketching shapes, flows, etc, are interpreted by the canvas as programmable and communicative spaces.

The base of the OS would be a near-blank canvas (taking a page from BeOS in memory, and a few modern OS attempts in current). The canvas would offer prompts (“what would you like to do” either in text or avatar), but the interactions would be scribbled, drawn, connected, and collected. The MercuryOS Concept approaches this in terms of the modules and prompts, not necessarily the input constraints.

Zoomed Excitement

Excitement in a new OS would be something like the OS being a canvas that is essentially zoomed in and out. Applications would essentially have only toolbars, no other chrome. But, and this is taking from Muse/Procreate, those tools exist only as a means to further create, connect, or adapt that level of zoom. Zoom out “enough” and you are looking at maybe a timeline of what you’d done (activity timeline). Zoom out a bit more and you are looking at constellations of activities, some of which have gravity to other activities. Some repel activities. The “verb” of what one does becomes the connective tissues, not so much the state of what was done. A canvas emulating space-time feels exciting.

The excitement of such an OS would be much like Arc’s browser in terms of getting out of the way. But, also because the possibility of what it enables is limited not by what had been done before, but, what the artist pens in their notebook.

Excitement seems to be a continual peeling away of layers, but exposing other parts and senses to the expereince of computing. This would be fertile grounds for what can follow as “augmented tools.” And as such, the creative spark can fuel itself towards the betterment of not just what happens in silicon, but what happens outside of it.

An Analogy of Presence

Mon, 10 Oct 2022 10:06:56 -0400

Watching young ones with connectivity is always a lesson. You might see them being distracted, or mindlessly entertained. I see them as navigating multiple realities without a sense of the boundaries of bias or manners.

Younger family members have been doing a thing where I’m put on FaceTime while they are doing something else. There’s sometimes silence when they are doing one thing, but I’m present. Others think or see this as “why aren’t you talking while on the phone?”

And yet, this isn’t the point. They have presence “in a box.” It is presence which they equate (to me) similar to being in person and attentive to. Presence that isn’t insistence of active talking and watching, but that of active being, showing, and living. It’s a wider, deeper form of presence than radio/phone, TV, cable, and even 1st emergent-internet. This group seems ready most for augmented spaces… and yet is it only because they are missing the bounds of purpose, priority, and even posture?

One younger family member, as I’m writing on this very thought, has me on FaceTime, while watching something on YouTube Kids. They ask of my opinion on what they can see but I cannot. And in the distance, chided for not talking to Uncle.

Their analogy of presence is very much different than ours. And where they take this, once they figure the tools, priorities, and efforts they want to esteem, could be amazing and terrifying.

Homeostasis As Normal

Tue, 26 Jul 2022 13:50:22 -0400

What if productivity is getting to the point (or maybe knowledge work, or any kind of work for that matter) of establishing homeostasis as the normal state, and disorganized, stress, entropy, whatever you wanna call it as the abnormal?

If this was the case, would we be looking at the concept of “weekend“ or “vacation“ in the same context that we currently do? Or, would work begin to take on a deeper meaning than simply “doing enough to survive.“

It’s possible, the stress is related to trying to maintain a livable state in many of our economies takes us out of homeostasis. The state of balance ought to be normal. However, we end up doing a lot of things (layering) so that we can get to understand or even be associated with normal. Even though disruption is more less normal.

Perhaps there is an opportunity with the current changes of work, workplace, intentionality, and humane design, to foster homeostasis as normal. And then give folks the tools to understand how to flow with disruption, rather than how to thrive in disruption - trauma existence.

Design’s Credibility

Mon, 18 Jul 2022 08:23:48 -0400

While listening to Charles Barkley on the Draymond Green podcast, he brings up an interesting point regarding credibility. Paraphrasing: it doesn’t matter how an active player views something that’s happening in the league, but they have to tell the truth in such a way which doesn’t rip the player, but addresses the behavior. Charles goes on to use “he had a bad game,“ as an example. Because the player probably had a bad game that night, it doesn’t mean the player is horrible, the person is horrible, etc. Speak about the behavior, and then move on. In doing this, the reporter/active player who’s talking about the league, maintains their credibility with the audience.

Swinging this to design and technology in an enterprise context, it could very well be made the case there is little to no credibility because of how design doesn’t speak for itself honestly, or how technology has been allowed to run without ethical constraint.

For example, Phoenix Perry tweets about Don Norman walking back his doctrine of human-centered design. What is so marvelous about the article, thread, and comments is how many folks were begging for removing the user from the center of the experience have validation (again) in being macro-focused to design impacts. Norman’s HCD focus is very much the gospel of design in many business circles. Such that to ask those circles “who the user is” or “what impacts do persons who are not the users have towards the platform” was often met with derision, instead of curiosity. Personally, it led to a conflict then reshaping of what it meant to be a designer, eventually resolving into a more active, more responsible agent within the worlds we are designing (the ethos goes: _ I see this cooperative, iterative, insanely creative “pen” of a future - designing worlds, communicating interfaces, and embracing every part of what it means to be humane._) Such a shift is a call back towards accountability for design, though (as the tweet’s comments detail), not all accountability has happened publicly or privately.

Connect to technology is also coming into the same questions of accountability. Everything from incoming regulations to what can be done with application stores and payments, all the way to how different countries will legislate how platforms secure information within their borders, are all questions connected devices, platforms, services, and those who maintain all of these, must attend. The industries using these connected technologies cannot run away from that accountability, else they will lose credibility with those persons who consume and build on top of them. The challenge, just like it is for the design community as mentioned earlier, will be not to only hear and pivot, but then to give just space to the behaviors and perceptions that should be put in front of the matter.

Design as a whole isn’t evil. However, if it does not stay accountable, it’s credibility will show its efforts to be most perverse - literally, inhumane.

Platform Semantics

Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:53:45 -0400

Do I need to care about their platforms?

This is a question often asked before going into certain types of training and consulting sessions. Part of this comes from a major disconnect in the workspaces others use. It only matters when brought in for some specific feature. But, also comes out when the thing needed isn’t the feature, but some kind of output the feature creates. Often, the output isn’t very unique, it’s a report or summary of what’s valuable or important. The language of getting to that output is unique to the company or team. And the platform (app, service, etc) is the semantics of how it is explained.

A friend says “convincing folks to live in the future is perhaps where you have an issue ” And they aren’t incorrect. The gap often found hearing the semantics, but running/seeing very far into the desired future - my own language a hurdle for them getting there.

Now, some would probably toss in the term “empathy” here. And maybe is needed. Maybe it’s a cop out. Consulting isn’t doing someone’s work for them, it is elevating their level of work through enabling them to discover what they couldn’t. Or, giving the enablements to unpack what was previously complex. There is some empathy at play here, but not nearly the dosage folks want to usually employ. These views into re-engineering complexity aren’t about doing what’s comfortable, it’s asking what is hardest to find comfort in — the unknown-unknown.

Perhaps, guilty of being welded to platforms and behaviors as much as critiquing. We all have our preferences, our standards. Some has been validated as the best ways forward. To ask for tips, tricks, and “more advanced things” is simply asking for those known-unknowns to be revealed. But, asking that of those outside of the context of org and behaviors seems an incorrect aligning of expectations. It would be better to get this from those inside, and then shape their messaging accordingly.

Or maybe the platforms internally prevent this. And instead of using the vulnerable terminology of “help us do something to keep us from being market-disrupted.” We instead ask for comfort in what we know by asking to push out its edges. Edges we think the platform has, but our behaviors and wants clearly indicate it doesn’t.

—-

In a recent Metamuse podcast (episode 59), there was an insightful conversation about the shape of “canvas applications” with the maker of tldraw. Of note within this conversation, a mapping of types of applications we might be accustomed to across a 2-axis continuum: content types and types of media. What is interesting and associative to this convo of platform semantics is how some of this push-pull about caring for platforms comes of trying to move from the bottom left of this map to something more on the right side (top would be Avanceé in practice, bottom could probably fit some business expectations better).

This tension between what is common versus what is useful will come up more and more as the browser and app containers become more challenged with the use of contextual, spatial, and (later) augmented/mixed reality interfaces. That tension will cause similar platform arguments. But, might (by that point) have clearer routes to solutions.

Independence and Superstition

Tue, 05 Jul 2022 09:58:27 -0400

Around this time of the year, many in the USA celebrate Independence Day with fireworks, cookouts, parades, and other festive moments. And yet, you can also see around the enterprise America’s own version of Independence Day celebrations. Everything from giving folks an additional day off, to introducing software platforms which reduce friction in workloads, to the on-boarding of summer interns and prime tasks. In many ways, independence has become just as much attention to faith of what it has become as it is a behavior to recognize a specific tradition.

And yet, this independence carries with it a sense of superstition. You can only take on new platforms at this point in the year, when you’ve done the right thing for the first half of the year. With staffing stabilized, the vision put in place in December/January is now running without much oversight. Sections of automations are tested, put in place, even temporarily (summer pilots). Interns have been on-boarded, and their slate of tasks have been structured for their learning, but also some interdependent discovery. In all of these, we work around a belief, and act on these conditions with the hope that some sense of “business will get done“ will continue to happen. Often, with some sense of “freedoms as we have tended to enjoy them“ will continue to be held.

But, what often happens is that things don’t go according to plan. What about the software which suspends your belief in automation because it doesn’t work as the marketing person demonstrates? Or would about the intern who needs more handholding - preventing them from being able to do the thing you brought them in for - who is now illustrating other areas of your operations which need attention? The things we believe can quickly be labeled superstition if we are not careful.

What then does it mean to be careful?

Independence can be treated like superstitions. A series of calculations where the shape of the outcomes are known yet surprising. Where the action one wants to take is perceived not as a dangerous risk, but a calculated one. This movement feels like independence, but it is not. It’s measured. It is superstitious. And inside of this belief becomes a growing sense of capability. Capabilities marked not by actual ability, but by what allows the shape of what’s believed to stay intact. For the team embracing the days of summer, this might look like rules around being remote, remote-but-available, and hybrid. For the team experimenting with new platforms, they are playing with the edges of security, interfaces, and maybe even audiences. Letting the interns roam freely around a facility, but only in intervals restricting how far or wide those conversations might expand. Independence is what these bits look like, however it really offers itself more like superstition.

What many orgs need to ascertain is whether they are operating more along the lines of superstition or around that of validated faith. Cultural awareness (diversity/equity/inclusion - DEI) calls into question what we do and don’t understand about one another. Human-centered design opens development and business practices to shaped experiences in the languages of the design and research community. And more. We should be encouraged to look for opportunities to expand our horizons and challenge norms. But, we should also be ready to see where the org lands. Some superstitions truly foster the kind of independence which maneuvers around seen and unseen disruptions. However, not every belief insulates. Some restrict. The opportunity for your org will be on the border between independence and superstition.

Sensemaking: Learning and Working

Mon, 20 Jun 2022 10:16:16 -0400

To some of us, “sensemaking” isn’t work. It’s an adventure… a self-fueled, sometimes even self-directed, path of discovery.

When every “job to be done” is looked at thru the lens of sensemaking, it makes sense why some folks don’t find pleasure in work, it isn’t their sense - Source

Been sitting on an intersection between working and learning - sensemaking. Sensemaking is a term worth marking this street post due to its ability to signal disorganization and profitability no matter now it branches. Within this intersection is the curb called learning, and it is often on this curb many trip or slope into the success or failure of approaches, tools, and even personnel performance.

In its most basic definition, sensemaking describes a method or process one uses to make order and understanding of the world around them. And when wrapped into one of the contexts in which Avanceé serves - coaching and training - sensemaking is a deliberate effort to confront, and make as plain as possible, patterns which lead to decision-making-behaviors. Decision-making-behaviors ends up being what most folks call the results of their work. And these can be empowered or enhanced by one’s ability to learn, adapt, and remix patterns for various outcomes.

Of the many efforts to aid in sensemaking over the years, one which has found a niche leveraging whiteboards and sketchnotes. Within a narrated or collaborative whiteboard, the physical act of placing and moving stickies, sketching/inking, and navigating creates pathways which are uniquely the viewer’s/user’s. And if active in participating, those neurological links create the opportune spaces for learning to happen (and be validated through questions, experimentation, etc.) to all parties. Learning isn’t lost for those who aren’t sketching. Even the audience finds a way to thread themselves into the shapes and connectors - often finding a means to contribute insights the canvas-workers might not notice.

The sketchnote’s most valuable placement would likely be to those putting their “hands to the canvas” so to speak. However, all of who engage the canvas are postured to benefit. For example, a case management flow from years back, was a solo-exercise towards keeping track with a conversation regarding conceptual features of a case management platform. Once it was shown to the discussion group, the concept became something all could actualize, putting stakeholders in the posture of having to make a decision of whether to go forward with the feature implementation or not (there was enough information in the sketch to drive further prompts). The sketch accented the lessons project participants already had, and the sensemaking approach illuminated routes for items an experience designer sees during ideation, not only what the business might regard as plausible.

So then, regarding working, what are the plausible outcomes? Often, Avanceé is addressing work from the perspectives of those who may be further removed from the outputs, but not the results of the work (outcomes). Here, we establish a “work framework” consisting of three questions:

what is the singular goal?
what are the three most prominent issues?
what reassures do you have in-hand to address those (three) issues?

These questions simplify focus towards defined and measurable outcomes. For example, when there is no longer suitable work occurring, we’ll often hear issues sounding less “here’s the measurable not being met” and more “here’s what I would like to see them do.” Our habits for suitable work (too?) often resort to symbolic gestures and methods, rather than encouraging and embracing alternative levels of connective tissue. As a coach, the goal isn’t to “do this like I do,” but to provoke “what questions about this thing invites curiosities leading to decision-making-behaviors.

What does this look like when the lesson is “how can I better leverage this tool?” It is simply, “what questions are you asking this tool to help you answer?” If those questions, then the tool might be part of the path towards getting to those outcomes. If not, funnel intentions and expectations into a malleable format. Such as shared in our past sensemaking article:

Structures (intake, not immediate)
Synthesis (give shape to what’s in hand)
Sharing (ownership only if necessary)
Search (machines calculate, humans find insight)

From that format, or even the goals-issues-resources one shared earlier, learning and working becomes less about “do this in a way do it,” and more open-ended; attaching outcomes to a embodied sense of achievement and work.

Comfort, Friction

Mon, 16 May 2022 10:45:22 -0400

Been doing this thing a little bit more frequently lately where when people are asking what Avanceé is, a demonstration happens. Specifically found on hardware (rings being worn, glasses being worn at that moment), or the flexibility that a desired platform does or doesn’t show (some funky workflows via Apple Shortcuts, AirTable play, or something a tick further in scope). And it’s really interesting how these interactive moments confirm routes for folks to consider whether or not their use of connected technologies is taking them forward or leaving them static in a changing world.

You see, most people really do live on the side of comfort. We make sure to live in comfortable places, transport ourselves in comfortable pods, and even go as far as making sure the relationships around us cultivate and nurture those aspects of comfort. When something rubs up against that comfort (aka, friction), we respond viscerally to this. If it’s too intense, we may respond negatively (someone being asked to tap their phone against a ring coming across like a “kiss the ring“ moment). If it’s not intense enough, it becomes forgetful (that same context of tapping a ring, but nothing happens because the phone is covered in a thick case which also blocks everything except cellular transmissions). Comfort, when it is challenged, can cause us to reevaluate whether or not we are in the place we want to be or taking proactive steps to the place we desire to be.

Within some Avanceé experiments over the past years, a lens towards comfort and friction has often come to the surface of the analysis. Whereas on one side we can ask folks to describe and point us to the desired outcomes that lead to comfort, many people fall a little bit flat when you ask them to do the same as it relates to friction. Understanding the ranges friction entails seems to be a semantic challenge. Or in simpler language, most folks don’t have a language for friction - they have a response to it, but no a language for it until they have processed it.

This language challenge looms larger when spoken in the concept of project teams and their attending organizations. Multiple management philosophies (Design, Development, Organizational, etc.) all try to cover these gaps. But friction, understanding the depth of this friction and what positive friction can do versus negative friction, seems to be missing. A commonly held axiom, “let’s break this down to a manageable level,” is the language of acknowledging friction. How the thing is being manage is what is addressing directly the friction learned. Far too often, managing the languages of the response isn’t managing the friction itself. Even as the friction is a complex moasic of controllable and uncontrollable activity.

Most people understand that without friction, a tire is not able to be utilized. If there’s not enough friction, for example when a road has rain or ice on it, then you slide off the road. If there’s too much friction, you don’t move at all. The right amount of friction maximize is the economy of energy that you put into the automobile, and also moves you in the direction that she would like to go. But over time, the level of friction may diminish. All things that are created will eventually decay. And the amount of heat produced when friction happens, causes this erosion. This is not a bad thing. It explains the range between comfort and discomfort.

The decision that many folks can lean into coming to really live across this continuum of comfort and friction. Once you have developed the language to understand what is comfortable, or what is challenging your comfort. The opportunity exist for you to redefine your relationship to the area that is regarded as friction. This can be challenging, and often requires a perspective well outside of ourselves. That’s not a call to hire an outside perspective such as Avanceé, but such views might be helpful if only for helping to judge whether the friction is actually a chance for innovation, or a call for better execution.

Data Analysis is Weird

Mon, 09 May 2022 09:07:16 -0400

Something of an “off the cuff” title to this, but in thinking about a few items which have been in the inbox lately, it kind of makes sense.

For example, one of the items in the inbox is of a session am currently conducting where folks have more or less needed to learn the basics of a specific analysis tool. The customer wants to move towards targeted trainings for specific features, but hasn’t yet identified what data points make the most sense for realizing success. If you will, if the point is to improve on a tool, the tool should enable better decisions for the business. However, those better decisions haven’t yet been pulled together, so the expertise in the tool goes where? Exactly?

Another item in the inbox, really a few items, points towards the “tools for thought” genre. This is a genre of tools and methods by those who synthesize, analyze, or remix data for various applications. And similar to the previous paragraph, often what happens in this space is the elevation of a tool or method until it becomes the floor for the next thing. A few interesting approaches always (Flatfile, SketchSystems, Einblick), and Hepabase as some of the latest) but the methods and discipline to create one’s own shape-of-thinking is the sensemaking bit which often seems missing.

And maybe that’s where some of this feeling of weirdness comes from. When one boils down a lot of knowledge work, outputs are really made of “counting and thinking with shards of creativity and ego.” So, if you can help folks ask better questions, there’s often not much more than something to scribble on which is needed to discover the solutions.

And in a similar frame, the automated insights which many software and services companies call artificial intelligence really amounts to nothing more than filtered calculations. It seems intelligent because the audience is either oblivious to the questions which made the calculations, or speed at which the number of questions were turned into answers amazes. It feels magical, when it is simply a faster view to the same wide world. In other words, weird thing causing appreciation.

So if this is the case, then what? Is data analysis really an admission by a certain body of people about the weirdness of the questions they couldn’t yet ask? Is the data really all that valuable, or the ways in which we think of it? Or, are we simply marveling at the limits of being able to reach into a box, so when the machine pulls it out there’s a “jack in the box” like surprise our dopamine receptors are responding to?

Weird, right?

Or maybe, just maybe there’s an overarching simplicity not just to the questions, but to the data itself. And as we canvas our respective inboxes, we open ourselves to the potential surprises of there being more to discover the more we are connected to. Which is cool. And weird.

Some Truths About Design

Mon, 02 May 2022 12:35:00 -0400

What are some things which may be true about design that seem to be ignored or looked over? Could there be truths about communication and design we would be best to run with, rather than continue with tradition? Possibly. Let’s explore a few.

For example, how long does it actually take to “do design?“ That depends on what someone means by doing design. For many people, design is strictly aesthetics. And because it is looked at as strictly aesthetics, the truth about design is not really realized because other support structures are put in place to make up for not paying attention to the things that are beyond the aesthetics (user flow, training, surge efficiency, network performance, security, etc.). When you do pay attention to these items, it doesn’t make the aesthetics any less important, but you do end up with seemingly simpler aesthetics, and a product whose functionality enhances the beauty of what you see or interact with. So, when someone asks you about “design“ make sure that they are telling you specifically about the interaction, not just the aesthetics.

Going back to that time question, so how long does it actually take? That depends on the competency of the designers that you are working with. Our definition of design encompasses five areas: design, code, continent, research, and strategy. Each of these five areas can be adapted to the individual more junior, or to a mature team or organization. However, each of these five areas exist fully in any project design. If there is any slack in any of those five areas, then “design“ will take longer. If you’re dealing with persons or teams who are quite mature, their tool set is proficient, and they are actually thinking not just of the user, but of the business’s return on investment, then you can have something that is done in a fairly decent timeframe. That said, nothing gets done overnight, ever.

What about the different aspects of design you might’ve heard about? For example the recent trend has been to talk about “human-centered design.“ Well, there is a such thing as being human centered. And one should make the distinction as to which design is being focused towards - the human, the product, an experience, a policy, or something else. Unfortunately, human-centered design often asks focuses on the user (not necessarily the consumer) of a particular product. If your design team is mature, they are going to help you highlight this, and focus on the correct audience(s). Otherwise, you’re going to aim to please every human, and still end up with an over-engineered, underdelivered product needing a good deal more support than initially expected.

One other truth about design is it’s complexity. Remembering an axiom, the simpler an item appears, the more complex it likely is. Re-engineering complexity is what good design proposes. And at the same time, just because a design feels good does not mean it that it is good. Clarity, focus, intentionality, accessibility (and more) are the actual components of good design. Good design may require creating a whole new tool to create or execute or implement. Bad design may also do the same. The difference between what is bad and good comes down to the value extended to the intended audiences. If the product or service adds value in a way not dependent on the thing that was designed, then you can equate the design as being good. However, just because something is good today does not mean it’s going to be good tomorrow. Good design also takes into account its limitations. Great designers understand these limitations and communicate effectively to the business and technical teams (and sometimes even to the audience) the limitations present, even if the value is extremely positive.

It’s truths such as these any team or organization should be looking at when evaluating a good design or designer for particular project or initiative. Some of these truths are going to be difficult because they challenge the very thread a business or technical stack stands on. However, remember the point about good design equaling clear communication. If the design is to be counted on, and it adds positive value to someone’s eventual investment of time or resources, then it should be no problem for the design and the designers (and the company supporting them), to communicate the truth of what they are bringing forth and why design matters.

Q1 2022 Avanceé Article Summaries

Mon, 25 Apr 2022 10:21:00 -0400

Running off to quieter platforms is often a decent way to make a distinct sound amongst the others. However, until traction happens, the quieter platforms often can use a boost. This, is that boost.

The following articles are derived from projects and interactions from this quarter and slightly before.

A Bit Off the Cuff A peek into the thoughts inside this Avanceé initiative as it started year three. Read Article

Three Leg Table A sensemaking analogy for executive and team relationships. Read Article

Sharpening A Few Arrows ‘Navigation’ as the true start to conversations. Read Article

One-Button Successes Analogy befitting a solution asked for, and a route simplifying getting there. Read Article

Design’s Dialects Identifying a common language before executing design deliverables. Read Article

A View of Tomorrow The advancements of tomorrow are first the intentional decisions today. Read Article

Work Flows Smarter Viewing productivity and advancement as a configurable workflow. Read Article

Artifacts of the Future Identifying protopian possibilities in the artifacts which are in-hand today. Read Article

Disabling Conversations Recognizing orgs by their conversations of outputs and outcomes. Read Article

Design As Anti-Career Career guidance in design is less planned and more discovered. Read Article

Disabling Conversations

Mon, 11 Apr 2022 10:32:00 -0400

While establishing this initiative, several conversations about its purpose and validity have come about. Often, these conversations start with a well-meaning, “are you able to do…?” And while often the answer is yes, there’s often a follow up question which may derail the intent. " As a result of (this item being done), how does your mission or vision prove its success? “ Unfortunately, for many new companies this can come across as disabling - in part because many people do not think far beyond the outputs they are asking for.

It’s important to qualify outcomes through understanding outputs. These outputs give an anchor to outcomes which may or may not be within the complete control of that team or organization. For example, one team or organization may be tasked with modernizing a specific process flow with outputs of improved efficiency, reduction in manual processes, etc. But, the outcomes of these activities may present themselves in further-caught measures such as employee retention, budget reductions/savings, or even a complete product revolution.

From this vantage point, all in the organization should understand many (if not most of the) outcomes of their activities beyond short-term goals. For example, if an organization wants to develop a retraining program, the outcome might sound like “ we just want to retain our people. “ It is not. This is output. The outcomes of retraining point to reallocations of work for enhanced economic value. It is often a reallocation of resources. And more often for leadership, retraining programs offers a soft landing when having to make hard decisions about who to keep/remove and where to pivot your product. So knowing the destination outcomes (profitability, usability, accessibility, etc.) are key for all, even if they may not be around to see or control future activities.

In the agile software methodology, there is a framing of tasks expressed in the format of:

As a result of (blank), the user will be able to (blank), so that they can (blank)

This framing keeps developers in mind of the entire scope of the product or feature, while focusing project managers and other stakeholders - who bend into reactive postures - at what’s immediately in front them (that is, the outputs). By keeping the longer-term vision in front of the ask, teams are less likely to be disabled by the question of “ as a result of doing this action, what’s going to happen? “

With this focus, the team or organization grabs the attention of those who will be most impacted by implementing the product or feature. Producers can then earnestly carry that vision through the ups and downs of implementing those outputs. After implementing the feature or product, the outcome will be a clear lens as to the state of what was created. Here, the united voices of outputs and outcomes should elevate items from “a job to be done” to “here’s what we added to…”

If this voice is missing or not in harmony, the team and org are disabled. And many orgs don’t understand how many structures within and without are setup to cultivate disability, rather than re-engineer complexity into harmonious outcomes. An inability for non-leadership to clearly communicate outcomes, or measure contributing to them, is a disability found in those conversations. From there, Avancee looks to co-produce a better story for orgs, through coaching and consulting the shape of design which fits their specific outcomes.

A View of Tomorrow

Mon, 07 Mar 2022 10:50:40 -0400

Sometimes we look at the future as something so far off that it’s almost unimaginable. But what happens when we look at the future and consider that it’s not only attainable, but the route to getting there is probably a series of smaller steps? What does the organization, or it’s leaders, do to instigate an attachment to that future view, while also fostering a sense of accomplishment in the now? Perhaps, it’s nothing more than being a great storyteller. Perhaps, it’s something a little bit more… a bit of pulling the future into the now.

Pulling the future into the now?

A bit more than a visualization. A bit more tangible than a prototype. Pulling the future requires a behavioral grabbing of uncomfortable proportions. For some leaders, this might mean not only getting the feedback from teams, but moving out of the way as the teams address the issues they see within their sphere of power and influence. For some teams, it is taking a process, and doing more than revisiting it, but throwing out all except it’s outcomes and choosing a “if this were reinvented today, what would it look like” approach.

The latter, redesigning something based on starting from today and the outcomes versus the past pains, tends of offer a lens which is one part imaginative and another part attainable. Often not realizing how many solutions are anchored to older problems - when those solutions are repeated too long, it becomes a rule of culture, instead of emphasize the outcomes initially desired. This shift in perspective ought to excite. New branches find unexplored areas to settle, and the ground for outcomes often finds a stability and efficiency all were once blinded towards.

Once this view of tomorrow is in sight, and the behaviors/actions are contorted towards making it happen, the only thing left is the continual decision to hold onto the next, versus revert back to the comfort of the past. This is no different than any other psychology at this point, but neither is productivity at it’s core — it is a psychology of work. And as such, the past is often helpful as a stone to build, but not as a stone to carry. A view of the future launches that stones, and you it’s rider, into a flow of something befitting desired outcomes and opportunities.

Design’s Dialects

Thu, 10 Feb 2022 23:38:13 -0400

Across a few previous projects, one shape of deliverable was a data dictionary, or some type of subject-genre lexicon. The prevailing thought for this: a set of orders for the collective members of the team to understand the work to be done, and then translate into a comment language for outcomes (those created and those external). Sensemaking methods were used to establish common terms.

In one project, this lexicon became a sprawling mess of pages, terms, external references, and eventually a consolidated playbook. However, we found a more successful route through a condensed outline. Carefully curated, and given a single point of collaborative contact (all collaborators used the same platform, not multiple); this lexicon enabled sales, designers, developers, and even newly formed stakeholders to understand the width and the depth of the design movement that was to transform their organization.

At the same time, creating this lexicon was a challenge to some of the other areas of the organization who already had a common vocabulary. For example, business development may speak about aspects of design in terms that are no longer used by current design professionals, or have alternate meanings because of their application to financial concepts. In other cases, there may be a dispute about the meaning or context of a word or phrase because of how it has been used within the experience of the design/research professional. In this case, consulting accountant specialist, along with a hearty discussion between all of the participants, usually leads to simpler, more addressable terminologies.

Design feels it should be an inclusive. Conceptually, it is really an analogy for the things others want to get done. Design has to transform itself into what’s most important for others. When others need to make decisions, design transforms itself into applicable research. When others need to build, design transforms itself into sustainable components, reusable contents, and layers of collaboration which reduce friction, instead of increase it. And then when it is heard, the dialect of design should warn, invite, constrain, or grow the thing to which is amplifying.

Compared to 10 or even 20 years ago, the language of design has found many voices, mini types of voices. Not all of those voices will be heard in the same way. However, if design is going to be the descriptor amplifying what others do, then its dialect not only needs to be spoken clearly, but applicable to understanding.

One-Button Successes

Mon, 31 Jan 2022 19:03:07 -0400

“Can you help me just get this process down to where I can click one button and it does what I need?”

There’s an anxiety and an excitement in these kinds of questions. Partially because it meets at the very thin intersection between outputs and outcomes. And at this boundary-place, there’s a navigation of expectations and enablement which can make or break an engagement. It’s in this space where the phrase (re)engineering complexity gets its legs.

For a recent client, this was question at the end of a complex scenario. The person wanted (rightly) to remove the complexity in an action happening across several documents and collaborators. They also only had a loose vision of what could be based on a larger workshop put on by Avanceé they attended. As such, there’s a route to almost all solutions, and in sitting with them, we ran through one of our frameworks for focusing on the addressable parts of the solution.

Goal: minimize the amount of work needed to update and validate a final report

Issues (a few of them):

final report was generated from a separate, static document
the final report would be generated weekly, and there was not yet a means to move data collection into a more malleable database
a significant validation step was in using a formula to extract information from a source document, then convert that product to generic text

Resources:

we had a timeline of past reports to draw from
within that timeline was also a series of behaviors, some of which were unique to the final report
there was a structured date-time reception to the information, giving a previously “head knowledge only” calculation a place to be used

There were a few more issues and resources, but this is sufficient to detail some of the complexity found in a seemingly simple “can we turn this into one button that solves everything” kind of ask.

After reviewing the behavior to generate the report, and discovering some additional quirks to validation (holidays shifting dates for example), we were able to create a path towards a solution - though probably not the initial desired one.

First, we were able to extract the date-time of each successive report from the file name of the static information. Based on the formatting and cadence, we created a field in a hidden area of the final report which would take the current date, then do a calculation for the date from that we desired. We then formatted that date-time to the same format of the source file.

Next, we took the product of that newly formatted date-time, and re-inserted the formula which had been previously swapped out for a text-only view. This gave us a view of the source document within the formula, and a route of simply using find-replace to update the formula as needed. And, in an effort to support the validation step, this find-replace action is kept as a manual step. The previous piece, getting the formatted date-time, happens when the report is loaded, so there’s no further calculation action needed.

We stepped through just doing these actions, and the result showed there only being a two step (instead of the previous 13) behavior - copy the new date-time, do a find-replace. The additional benefit of this is in the formula not changing, keeping the older state of data for review.

Now, we could turn the copy-paste then find-replace into a single action, but in our validating of the behaviors, we noticed some additional data points which could be a part of the report, and this would be an intermediate validation step before the find-replace. Still, we have a one-button solution if needed ready to go.

Does this answer the initial need? Yes. The solution discovered in minimizing the validation steps to make and create the new report eased the friction found in there being too many steps in the additional process. There’s a bit more which can come from this; but that would happen within other points in the process - likely in the source documents. And if I’m those points, am certain another technology would be used instead of static documents.

This is one of a few examples of what Avanceé does to coach and consult individuals and teams. If work like this would be of a benefit to you or your team, reach out and let’s discover a better path.

Sharpening A Few Arrows

Mon, 24 Jan 2022 11:03:00 -0400

Have been encouraged over the past few weeks with several conversations about what this initiative is about. Into that end, many of those conversations have sparked a few refinements to previous ideas. In some cases, they’ve confirmed approaches, while in other cases they’ve lent a different perspective. What’s been good about this is the journaling that happens afterwards, it offers an opportunity to sharpen some of those arrows for eventual offerings or experiments.

…since my arrival, navigation has been the true start of the conversation

Often, we might not notice the subtlies of random conversations, detoured directions turned, or newly found depths in sounds playing in terms of them sharpening or shaping the ways we are traveling. For those instinctive teams (or individuals themselves), it almost becomes a regular occurrence to follow those signals. However, if not careful, we can find ourselves out of tune with our environment, moving about in processes that we do understand, but is no longer instinctive. It’s a process, yes. It’s the way that we do things. It’s a hardened framework. It is… the norm.

Some of these in the quiver point to being a little less hardened, and a little bit more instinctive. If there is a place for adding resiliency, versatility, capacity, etc. to one’s efforts, it’s probably not going to come in the place of a hardened, or routine effort. The probably needs to be some re-centering. And then once centered, you can focus on making a clear direction more viable. You can focus on making an offering, capable of reaching its destination.

Before writing this, was sitting on the Muse whiteboard and noticed a few articles in the quiver. Each one has its own excitement, it’s own breath. However, if not sharpened before release, they won’t meet their intended targets. Probably, the most exciting one is not even on the whiteboard shared with this. Because that one is it even greater leap. That experiment, if it can come to pass tangibly, figures to capture everything meant about taking a leap forward through re-engineering complexity. But, before that happens, the thoughts need sharpening. Before that happens, the applications, services, and frameworks need refinement. Not that things can’t be shared sooner-rather-than-later. Only that they should be sharpened, so that when show share and tell comes, it really does hit the bullseye.

Three Leg Table

Mon, 17 Jan 2022 13:20:00 -0400

Over the course of many years of mentoring and coaching, there’s been a common axiom shared with folks to help them identify a specific gap in development/maturity:

A three legged table is very stable. What legs do you have?

Many people do not realize that in personal and professional matters, it makes sense to have a balance of three layers of people around you. The first layer, teacher/mentor. The second layer, best friend(s)/road buddy. And the third layer, mentee/student. When someone has these through layers working in harmony in their lives, they realize a certain sense of stability to social, emotional, and psychological connections. There is a freedom to grow and expand, as well as to be challenged. There is an ability to be profitable, as well as a resolve to focus on the disruptions even if they may be risky.

A framework for understanding if your executive team is standing at level can also be to use the same three-legged table. In terms of a teacher, does your executive team, and/or each member of your team, have a mentor or board they can bounce ideas off of and get wisdom to the road newly traveled? With the exception of the smallest of companies, there’s probably going to be some road buddies. However, this needs to be safeguarded; the executive team should not become such a clique that it impedes (even by perception) the ability to ingest new and corrective information to prevent zealousness or egotism.

Lastly, the students or mentee component. Well this may sound like simply having employees, it goes a little bit diver. Do you have a ladder of development for those persons who are employees, or who wish to laterally move around your organization? Do you have a structure of communications which allows them to ask the hard questions, receive the hard answers, to succeed and fail at their discretion, not just because “this is the way we’ve always done it?“ Does the student have the ability to teach the teacher? Do you have the capacity, or have made the organizational capacity to continually learn from those persons who have decided to join your vision?

These three legs offer most individuals, and certainly most organizations, the ability to mature to a point of being able to become their own satellites who are also building out additional three-legged tables.

And what about if you do not have these relationships? Or if you only have one or two of these, what then? Well, a reasonable analysis may point to using a sensemaking framework indicating “now that you know what the issue is, what resources do you have in-hand to be able to address those items?“

For a teacher/mentor relationship, this might mean creating a board, or re-visiting communication methods with an existing board. For the road buddy relationship, there might be some re-evaluation to what work versus non-work boundaries look like. There might need to be some team/leadership trainings to be had by all (or even the simpler, “let’s all read this book and see if it helps us be better at…” method). And lastly, for the student/mentee relationship, this might mean creating or tightening the quantitative and qualitative methods used in evaluations, running feedback sessions where student/mentee/employee facilitates, or even increasing/trimming the team to a more addressable size.

A three-legged table is quite stable. As are many three-wheeled vehicles. How might your relationships better enable positive resiliency for you or your teams? How you plot your team forward may very well not simply depend on you alone, but the other legs which are a part of your environment.

Need coaching or consulting to continue this conversation? Get in touch and let’s move you and your teams forward.

Podcast: Theology and the Metaverse

Mon, 10 Jan 2022 11:55:46 -0400

The other week, got a chance to hang with an old friend Nigel Scott (@ExCapite) on his new podcast conversations space Wealthy Tiger. The topic of this conversation started around the idea of the metaverse being another theological expression. And per usual, the conversation took some delightful routes (rites of passage, the depth of connecting, and more).

Take a watch or listen and use your social spaces to comment and add variety (tag us on Twitter via @AvanceeAgency).

A Bit Off the Cuff

Wed, 05 Jan 2022 14:12:00 -0400

Over the past many weeks, have had several conversations, and really insightful pieces of wisdom from various persons, about the future of Avanceé. One of the things very clear about this initiative is that it’s something that really doesn’t require a lot of thought to get behind. When explaining the intention for this initiative, it resonates very quickly. But I think most of that comes from the aspect of being able to knit someone’s context to the story of reengineering complexity. That’s talent from myself, not so much the framework of what this is… yet.

And at the same time a prevailing thought is there’s a little bit more than just process transformation because of Avanceé. Really, the best pieces of work, the parts of this work resonating, is where there’s some type of coaching preceding and walking alongside any process reengineering. Where there’s not so much, here’s this framework or website or application, but there is more of a “help me understand how to help you“ kind of conversation. And from that conversation, from the exploration something new, simplified, novel, or common sense makes it self known.

Or maybe this endeavor is simply “coaching” 🤔

Maybe this initiative really is more consulting than it is anything else. And that just might be OK. The shape of what it means to have a better sense of a design, or understand the outcomes of certain inputs, or even re-engineer processes, makes sense in the guise of consultation; but, it probably leans a bit better to meeting the need of teams and individuals when it’s framed more like coaching instead. And that focused isn’t lost. But it does point to something that’s not so easily defined in one or two market categories. It is something that’s a little more “build as you go.“ And then as systematic bits makes themselves evident, there’s less of a need to come off the cuff, and more of a sense of “OK, here are the outcomes that we’re gonna be able to point you too.“

At least in this moment that’s what it sounds like… Off the cuff that is.

Identifying the Necessity of Opportunity

Tue, 14 Dec 2021 12:47:09 -0400

Part of the market space in which Avanceé plays is within the civic tech space. Civic tech, or the technologies and services which facilitate government services and citizen engagement, is a mixture of fast moving pieces and slow(er) moving policies. If there’s any play for re-engineering complexity, this is one space in which this would be quite a benefit. However, identifying those opportunities to reduce unnecessary friction is often a mix of mining requests for proposals, local/state chambers of commerce, and even hot button topics from news and social media. Or, one can take a look at public declarations and find markets hidden in pain sight.

One of the places to look for areas of opportunity in civic tech comes from looking at what has been deemed necessary by posture or policy. Those programs which are wanted for improving the quality of service, upskilling a specific population, or addressing a previously under-funded area are ripe for re-engineering. Of late, paying attention to the Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions shows a slew of areas in which necessity for governing is also opportunity for engagement.

Now, we won’t say what exactly Avanceé is looking into in that or other datasets, only that the framework for taking active steps forward is much less complicated than inventing something wholly new. Often, new is simply a matter of finding what areas of necessity have been neglected, and then simply addressing them. And where there might not be an ability to address, there is context to the language and shape of the discussions which surround. Which also meets the need of reducing complexity… our posture and goal.

Figuring Out A Future

Mon, 06 Dec 2021 11:18:00 -0400

In dedicating more of a focus to Avanceé, there’s been a good bit of resetting the plate which has happened across several familiar and unfamiliar spaces. In some conversations, there’s been less “here’s what Avanceé does” and more “how can Avanceé help you.” In some spaces there’s been a subtle shift from push to flow. And still in others there’s a conservative shift towards experiments driving tasks towards experiments building platforms. A good bit of conversations are refocused towards the startup and small business community, so it makes sense to detail this shift towards this theme also.

For startups, whether in tech or using tech, what’s the Avanceé story?

A theme consistent through a few talks and conversations with the FromAFuture crew points to a reshaping and focusing of what’s here and what’s to come with connected activities. For example, in one conversation, we have been talking about the usefulness of the iPad and the value of it being even larger. Our perspective is that it is not much of a value of the screen, but that the actual usable screen of life is much wider than any pane of glass can be. The iPad has been a transformative canvas in respect to it doing a lot of base things very well. So well as a consumption device that (louder) owners and some developers have simply stopped right there. For those who have dug in more (Muse, Procreate, Adobe Comp CC, etc.), they have rewarded iPad owners with a sense of intuitiveness bordering on a kind of “drug for curiosity.” This presents a novel opportunity — not only for the startup which develops iPadOS software/services — to reevaluate and create shapes of work following closer to the desired outcomes, than the hardened inputs.

For a few teams where there’s been a much longer engagement, the conversation is finally moving from “what are the features we don’t know” to “what are some shapes of work we had not explored?” This is an exciting, though slower moving shape of work. Still, this kind of “re-engineer the shape of work” follows along with what Avanceé forwards. One of those groups has such a locked-in view of their legacy software. They seem to want to see it do more, but the levels of work right above those who use these workflows hasn’t yet transformed. The workshops and conversations with this group is definitely challenging, but also most fulfilling when they “get it.” It isn’t digital transformation anymore, but now behavioral change driving their path forward. That’s exciting.

That’s a bit of what things have looked like lately in terms of helping some startups point towards a future. Where things go from there is still up for grabs. The holiday season isn’t where so many folks look forward but look backward. And that will happen a tick here also. Backwards is an excuse to accelerate forward focused on enabling and empowering who we can. Whether that’s with Spectacles or Vue or something to come, Avanceé tends to be well positioned for all those who care to understand and go.

Of 2021’s Experiments and Ruminations

Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:35:00 -0400

This has been an interesting year in regards to various experiments. In some respects, these experiments are a testament to an ongoing curiosity that drives this initiative. But in other respects, there’s a little bit of looking back to see what could’ve been, something like regret but not as strong.

Last year, did a similar roundup of various experiments.

So what about some of these experiments for this year,? What has worked out? What hasn’t? And what still gets to get some time?

Apple’s Scribble for iPadOS (in-progress) has been a really interesting workflow enhancement. Whereas there are some moments (like writing this article) we are typing or dictation takes president, have a finding many more opportunities to use scribble. And especially the ink written notes within iMessage. Those of added a type of humanity to this technology space that’s often missed. Still, would be nice to see more apps for iPadOS updated to not only support scribble, but also bend to an interface more around writing than typing.

Astropad’s Luna Display (concluded) is a very neat experiment highlighting some significant challenges and changes within my workflow compared to others in the design/development space. Not that it was a bad experience, in fact, it was actually quite well. However, most of the reason for using macOS was tied to workflows that I did less and less of. In a very real state, iPadOS is more than enough to get a majority of work done. In the places where it wasn’t, using the LunaDisplay was insightful to the types of interface design that macOS isn’t really fit to support (touchscreen or 10 foot). Things might have been able to progress a little bit more, but the attending macOS computer needed to stay a little bit clean for the type of work which was being done. I no longer have that computer, but I still have the display, and wonder what other possibilities may exist in the future.

Building A Secure Store/Wallet via McLear’s Omni NFC Ring (concluded, for now) is probably the most disappointing in not being able to complete. Besides the significant investment in research around identification protocols, hard wallets, and data formats, this is just been a slightly frustrating thing to try and get off the ground. One significant struggle has to do with using iPadOS. Currently, there are no tools or hardware which enable the ability to deploy JavaOS code to the Omni ring. Recognizing that, moved to a slightly different solution trying to embed a data URI into the OPN NFC Ring, which was met with a little bit of success, and some new understandings on the differences in treating packet data between iOS, Android, and Windows. The Omni ring will stay around, but being able to leverage it will have to wait for a shift in hardware access, or something else.

Bitcoin, Ethereum, and IFTS Domains (on-going) is another project which has seen its bit of success and challenge. However, there’s still a whole lot more to explore here. First, some of the lessons of just simply understanding what bitcoin and other alternative currency can do has been fruitful. Also, playing with the idea of a hard wallet (see above) as well as different exchanges, has been pretty insightful to the workings of what people are emotionally attached to, versus what trends might be happening. One of the more interesting plays has been to just simply get a few domains sitting on L1/L2 blockchains. For Avanceé, picking up avancee.crypto wasn’t too hard (via Unstoppable Domains). There’s a thought of doing similar via the Ethereum Name Service but am holding off for the moment while looking at other happenings. That said, an NFT play would be something to come. Working on details of that also. Maybe next year’s report chats on this.

Helm Personal Email Server (TBD) was going to be the most positive-sounding experiment. However, it is currently having some issues; so an opinion on Helm needs to wait until a solution comes and emotions quell a good bit.

Muse for Weekly Links Share (on-going) has been an intriguing and insightful twist. Originally, the idea was to share both the links and the image of them, but quickly turned to just the images. The earlier shape of shares which also included art and writing were good, but time got away from doing these without feeling forced or rushed. Still, have been able to maintain sharing and posting. If there’s anything which could improve, it would be to share directly to Micro.Blog as an SVG so links could stay live/embedded. It has been a solid item nevertheless, with a few comments here and there about the shape of the shares. An interesting by product of doing this has been taking notes of the Metamuse podcast, there’s a shape here which can be explored further.

Looking at this year’s projects, compared to last year’s, there’s a sense of being slower and more deliberate. But, also of diving deeper into implications of trends which are coming quickly.

And despite this am still not quite satisfied with the overflow and alchemy from this year. There’s been a tick too much time spent on items which cannot be controlled. Hopefully, the shape of next year’s alchemy bends better in that direction, while also being attentive to the webs connecting these experiences to outcomes for Avanceé and it’s clients.

What Does A Fractional Executive Do?

Mon, 22 Nov 2021 12:21:00 -0400

In the recent attention towards Avanceé, one area of interest has been in shaping “fractional executive services.“ Thought it would take a little to understand, but am finding the curiosity of what is possible needs to also be tangible to what is delivered. So this will lay out that offering as conceived so far.

First, it makes sense to start with what Avanceé already is, taken from the description here:

Avanceé articulates the value of systems and design experiences, then (re)engineers complexity alongside individuals, teams, and/or small businesses through tailored coaching, management, and consulting

Or, to say it another way: empowering individuals/teams to take their next operational step(s) forward by reducing complexity in process, tech, and/or behaviors. Implementing this and guiding best results is where a fractional executive comes in.

Pulling from Wikipedia‘s definition, a fractional executive is one _ who offers their management services to organizations on a for-hire, part-time basis. These executives typically have experience in a business environment in roles such as chairperson, owner, CxO, senior vice president, vice president, or director. Their skills can be focused in one discipline or be more broad-based, depending on their experience._ in the very clear case of Avanceé, this shape of a fractional executive fits within the vertical of design and research strategy operations, which is commonly an office held by a chief experience officer, chief design officer, or director of user experience.

##So then, what does a fractional executive do?

At its most basic level, a fractional executive is a stand-in for that specific executive role enabling an organization to craft strategy, management, or operational governance in such a way that does not disrupt existing daily operations, but enables crafting paths for future scaling and success. Somewhat less expensive overall than having them full-time, the fractional executive has a higher initial cost with a greater return because they are supporting internal structures to develop and mature personnel and processes, rather than just be the figurehead themselves.

This is not an uncommon arrangement in some mid to large- sized organizations, though it is a newer one to the better understood consultant-model. It makes sense because it gives time back to business operations to concentrate on other areas of maturing finance, security, or even project management, without the extra overhead of looking for executive leadership (for a time). At the same time, this arrangement is also time bound. Meaning that measures of success have to happen quickly, within a specific time period. This time period leaves a little room for wasted meetings, bloated integration of software or processes, or even extend it resource allocation cycles. More than simply supporting company growth, The right approach for a fractional executive embraces and fosters organizational maturity.

In the role of a fractional executive, Avanceé comes into an organization with an open mind and clear focus about driving specific outcomes. Those specific outcomes are going to be driven by being human-centered in research, embracing friction-lessened design, and demonstrating an ethical approach in behavior enabling intuitive workflows. These tenants support outcomes bolstering organizations for their expected growth trajectory, allowing agility and resiliency within their organizational character to be cultivated healthily. Deliverables may vary; but are always tailored to the needs of the organization.

##What sectors are being targeted for this service offering?

Initially, civic tech, health/finance operations, and distributed commerce groups (i.e., chambers of commerce). These sectors have existing connections, and primed for exploration and maturity our experience sees happening nationally and internationally. In addition, as Avanceé scales, it’s resulting structure will enable several of these engagements concurrently, where each fractional executive and/or consultant doesn’t just add value to the attending company, but also creates artifacts and behaviors of increasing value between its members.

If that sounds good, schedule some time to talk and see how Avanceé might be able to help your organization move forward.

Expectations and Boundaries

Tue, 16 Nov 2021 14:20:00 -0400

Responded to an insightful post on LinkedIn which Dr. Richard Claydon asks about challenges related to going back to the office/remote work as normal (for knowledge workers).

What’s the biggest challenge of the various return to office models being suggested to the markets?

Many having difficulties reconciling professional and personal expectations regarding “what has to happen” vs “what is happening.” Some are finding the loosening of expectations as giving them room for a framework they’ve long wanted to explore. Others finding their frameworks for productivity and living are bound to those expectations. And the speed of their change breaks them (identity) down, not just the culture of work they upheld.

Boundaries are the fun one. The power dynamics some knowledge workers have wielded aren’t too different than the sprawl which defines too many “homes” and “commutes.” No longer being able to give space to the boundaries between work and home, folks are finding their locus of control or management challenged. Maybe also can call this a “lack of framework,” but also a lack of a psychological skeleton to deal with resettled boundaries without first dealing and healing thru various traumas. Those who take up the challenge to heal seem to be able to deal with the resettled boundaries differently.

There are a few more thoughts regarding this; which may come forward in some articles being currently worked on regarding design/research operations and team maturity building. Expecting some boundary-stretching bits? Yep.

Dark Patterns Are Decisions

Wed, 10 Nov 2021 11:45:17 -0400

Dark Patterns Are Decisions

In a recent conversation regarding design governance and operations, the topic of managing design debt came forward. This was great as there was another convo (panel) regarding dark patterns on deck. A chance to get some symmetry and homework done at the same time.

What are dark patterns? Well, they are essentially methods found as a result of a design asking a person to do something that they would not ordinarily do, or outright deceiving the user (several types of them). As a matter of preference, I’ll try not to use the word “user“ because it’s not just a pattern that results in something bad for the person that’s using the system, but often result in a pattern of thought or activity or measurement that often serves to be a black hole to the company/organization as well.

One of the areas of conversation that is worth diving into when talking about dark patterns happens to revolve around the decision that causes these dark patterns to come about. You see, not everything that a developer or designer does is malicious from the outset, but often has its grounding in another decision that happened before it got to the designer or developer. These are decisions such as “move quickly and iterate later“ or “we will get the requirements after we designed the thing.“ These kinds of decisions, and others like them often set fertile ground for dark patterns to arise out of various behaviors.

How do we prevent these decisions that foster, nurture, dark patterns? One Of the first things that we can do is to think thoroughly about the entire course that a product or service needs to take. Meaning we don’t just think about it from the lens of the business, or the lens of the person consuming the product or service. We wanna take a look at every decision which needs to be made, which may include looking at platform limitations. It may be the case that we have to add a form in order to collect a certain amount of information, but because of the platform that we’ve chosen, we need to collect more information in order to kick off workflow to do what the business needs to have happened, so that we could ensure a better customer experience. The decision to use that platform, or decision to not customize that platform is what nurtures the dark pattern of asking for too much information.

Unfortunately, this type of thinking, decision based design, is not the norm for many programs and projects. Because of other decisions which may need to be made, or other fires, we often find decisions, made or not, as the fertilizer to what ends up being the experience regarded as dark, light, illuminating, or defeating. Those persons who are not in the decision making capacity can assist in making sure that the right decisions are made by introducing the right kind of friction to their respective projects. Instead of simply “just making the thing,” the designer offers outcomes as a result of the outputs (“if we design this, here’s what our outcomes are projected to be; if we don’t make this decision here, this is the kind of design debt/fractured experience/etc which will develop”).

Fortunately, dealing with dark patterns is a lot easier than many people give themselves credit for. You have to introduce just a little bit of friction, slow down a little bit, so that the thing that you are designing truly gives both the business and the consumer the best experience. And from that, you’re no longer looking at design as an output to support your business, but good design is going to be what’s understood because your business supports the outcomes that a person/team/organization most needs to happen.

Structuring & Shaping DesignOps

Mon, 01 Nov 2021 08:50:00 -0400

Over the past few months, a series of conversations regarding design operations (DesignOps) has been gaining steam in some local channels. While many organizations, and even smaller teams, understand the need, many do not have a framework or structure within those organizations to produce operational structures for actively maturing design and research needs. Mostly noting these gaps due to a lack of senior experience, consistency in design/research credentials, and/or metrics befitting the business’s specific ROI rather than “design vernacular.” Developing or maintaining a structure for applying repeatable, profitable, and professionally traceable design operations is quite similar to discovering business models inside of a (hopefully, currently successful) business. However, upon such a structure, many businesses might find these structures also invite the prospect of what specifically disrupts their business model.

What follows is part of a series of notes speaking to structuring and shaping design operations.

The Organizational Structure

The challenge for design operations, and research operations, doesn’t simply come from lack of a framework, but just a lack of attention to shepard its development. It is It’s more possible therefore that organizations wishing to implement some framework should probably start with a two-pronged approach: understand the needs on the project level from a macro standpoint, and then from the executive standpoint create structures that allow for validation, continual discovery, and the shaping around such framework skeletons.

Tasks
Management
Drivers
Decision Points
Delivery

Each of these areas have a specific shape. However, structure is going to depend on the ability of the organization to capture quantitative and qualitative activity in consistent manner. It’s possible that this comes from an executive facing posture. In this way, governance and deliverables for current projects are disrupted in a minimal manner. At the same time, activities happening on the project level are where task, drivers and delivery get their validation.

This list is conceptual, and mostly aspirational, but could also factor into what organizations want to put together in a near-immediate fashion.

This list also lives in a little bit more detail for some of the projects that we are looking to be engaged in. So some of the secret sauce will have to wait until a few case studies, or other future articles.

Chief Design or Chief Experience Officer

The executive office needs to be fully invested in this. This might not where the vision comes from (thinking: vision might be generated a level below, but the executive support is what drives org investment) but this is experience — measured, maintained, and design/research understood as a profitable member of the organization. And as such, the executive sponsor takes a three-headed view of operations, each sufficient on their own, but hooked into one another for the entire story.

Design
Experience
Research

Early thoughts have these being led by a single individual. Directly reporting to this person should be a team who are the vision makers, and who also hold the most responsibility and accountability for research outcomes, design experiences, and user/consumer safety. In the notes, leaders in these departments/practices are described as:

VP of Design / Design Principal
VP of Experience / Experience Principal
VP of Research / Research Principal

Now each of these roles seem pretty similar at one view, but they are definitely different and the arrangement of them should indicate this. Specifically for those folks who are call advocates, you could think of them as director-level, but with evangelist/principal influence (indeed, inspired by this tweet thread). This would be the non-management direction for those persons who are mid-level who are looking for senior-level roles.

On the other hand, vice presidents are to be more responsible for handling the business — governance, yes, but also the business. In order to make sure things do not fall away from the development needs, having liaison roles makes a good deal of sense, or at least it did when initially writing notes on this.

Connecting to thr Rest of the Org

Alongside those three would be a series of liaisons and advocates from other parts of the org which shape how design integrates into the rest of the business. These are described as:

Security Liaison
Accessibility Guidance Liaison
Research Advocate
Developer Advocate
Design/Experience(IxD) Advocate

There’s a bit more to this, but the shape of this team more or less looks like the top end of a professional ladder for those persons who are within design and research professions who end up becoming either managers or principals that have an influence on the operational aspects of design and research (that tweet thread again). A working assumption is that many organizations who work in unstructured spaces, or who are looking to leverage digital transformation (whatever that supposed to mean), could potentially use a model like this to not only improve design and research outcomes, but also create a path for maturing their people to be able to fulfill those operational goals.

What else is possible with this? Maybe a part two, maybe just let loose on a few orgs to build it (wink).

Token Innovation

Thu, 30 Sep 2021 23:27:00 -0400

Digital transformation
Modernization
Lane
Minimalist \

There are many terms and fads which make their way through enterprise conversations. And for the most part, it’s very hard to ignore. Mostly because knowledge of those terms is what allows conversations for productivity or profitability to be anchored. If you will, it’s not so much that these terms have value, but the terms are signal to what somebody else (might) values and how they may or may not decide to engage in a business relationship.

Unfortunately, these terms, and the resulting transaction, often point to a less-sustainable (disruptive) change — innovation. That term innovation is filled with so much context. For some organizations it means transformative. For some organizations it means business as usual, just with a different set of clothes. For some organizations it might even mean shifting cultures, without shifting responsibilities. Innovation is one of the points of value in conversation where posture is affirmed — whether one does or does not engage in a business relationship.

Which is why it is probably not the best self-described term to use. In some recent conversations, teams and companies who are talking about being innovative end up reducing the posture to “how do we stay the same but have the appearance of transformed?“ Or, how do you take advantage of the new thing, without moving so far off the Lilly pad of the thing that has gotten you to where you are? Innovation, in this context is merely a token. Merely a signal that someone should want to engage them because they do speak the language of the age, even if they do not practice the behavior of the next one.

Now, it is not true that every business relationship needs to pass these tokens between one another. Innovation, for all of the crud that is packed into its context, can truly be a good thing. An organization who is looking to transform the culture of their industry might engage in truly innovative practices. They may actually engage in truly disruptive, sustainable, and accessible methods that look nothing like the current business campus. And this is where innovation should live. It should not be possible for everyone to attain this. As a matter of fact, this token (innovation) should actually be so valuable because so few people can even utter what it means to exist in such a context.

So then, should an organization or a team or an individual describe themselves as innovative? Probably not. Maybe, similar to the characteristic “humility,” this is a characteristic that is best described by a third-party perspective or point of view. Innovative should be the thing that’s recognized by those persons who are outside of the affected space. Calling attention to those persons who should be aware that disruption, sustainability, etc. is happening; but also giving value, giving weight to the fact that it’s not something so easily carried by everyone who wants to be in the conversation. Innovation carried well is really gold, and all persons should be able to recognize it versus pyrite.

However, we do find innovation passed around as if it were pennies found on the ground at a café. Sure, we can talk about this thing that shines in the sunlight, present at a place were similar transactions occur. But it’s not really disruptive except for being out of place. And when it’s even handed, or put into a position where it has more visibility, it’s nothing more than a token of something greater that’s happening in that space. Somethings stable, something disruptive, something that deserves more value ascribed to it than simply posturing “I’m innovative.“

Wellness As Forward Value

Tue, 21 Sep 2021 20:47:56 -0400

For the past weeks, have been staring a friend’s business card who is involved in the wellness sector. What’s most interesting about their practice is they are in a part of the wellness sector which also serves government customers. A space where you don’t usually think of contracting entities having influence. And yet, for some of the projects and trend-spotting which happens as a result of this initiative, one can almost see that they are very well positioned for the next version of what constitutes enterprise value.

It’s so what does it mean to use wellness as a transactional value item within a sector that usually he sees wellness described as “living long enough to get my pension?“ One can imagine that this can be solved, or at least alluded to, by looking at some of the wellness programs which have sprouted around government entities over the course of the past decade. From many of these groups, they are looking at the cost of health and life insurance, and developing ways to improve risk factors, and the resulting cost, by improving the general health of their populations. Insurance companies have jumped alongside this, doing as much as even helping to kickstart wellness activities for individuals and families, sometimes even tying premiums and deductibles to wellness outcomes.

But what about active wellness? What about that quantitative analysis that is made popular by devices such as the Apple Watch and Woop. What about the type of analysis or activity that can be found in groups on Strava who may work out as a part of taking a break between meetings, but there is still information that is of good value. What about these activities that can point to wellness?

Taking that a step further, you have some practitioners of various management philosophies who use wellness scores (not often called wellness, but they may be agreed of how you feel on that day and either a number or a set of words or even in emoji family), and then track that information to better understand the state of being psychologically as well as physically for a team. Such information points to a little bit better understanding of what it means to be healthy, well, versatile, etc. And also points to what can be calculated as another point of value for these enterprising teams and their respective organizations. If you will, if you’re not measuring it, then are you really getting well? And if you’re not getting well, does this point to other failures in business or project management which could’ve been mitigated by doing something as simple as taking a few of the meetings during the week and turning them into walking meetings?

My friend is looking at what it takes to be a profitable player in the wellness space towards government agencies. A posture is a very appropriate one given the last 24 months of lockdown, quarantine, and remote working. However, for enterprises to take advantage of what wellness programs like theirs offers, they may also need to re-allocate or re-designate value is something more than just the bottom line in profits. It may very well be the case that a certain number or percentage of profits might point to a healthy business, but a sick body of people working in that business. What if wellness were actually part of this measure of value? And what if moving forward didn’t mean having the most profit possible, but the best balance of profit and wellness?

Remnant Fitness did not compensate Avanceé, nor was consulted before the publishing of this piece.

Sensemaking

Wed, 08 Sep 2021 22:36:58 -0400

Today seems to have been a continual gospel about sensemaking. In its most basic definition, sensemaking is the method or process that one uses to make sense of the world around them. Often, we have these frameworks and many of them quickly become unconsciously driven. However, when they become consciously driven, we describe a different word to this: culture, regulation, policy, process, etc. no matter how you describe it, this tends to be a very common artifact of those persons who take whatever they learned and move forward. Knowledge transfer, and it’s very core is the realized opportunity of sensemaking.

One thing that you may realize quickly, if you take a look across an organization, is that there are often individuals whose ability to make sense out of data or structures tend to go very far beyond, or lag very far behind, the mean. The company, or team, or department, figures out what this mean is, and then tries to put in place other methods of making sense out of their environment in order to get everyone on the same page. Agile methodologies are one artifact of this type of normalization. However, not every sensemaking method or behavior can be normalized. Creativity in thought is a uniquely humane condition. What might be normal to one person or group, is now a conscious effort to be simply understood by another.

As a part of what this initiative puts forward, since making is something that all teams in groups can I scribe to. But it has to be done under a framework or a structure that allows the group to discover their own methods. When is successful, it doesn’t look like work on our side. It looks more like “simplified miracles.“ It looks a little bit less like magic, or unique understanding, and begins to look a little bit more like “oh, this is possible for us. And if we… then we might also leverage similar artifacts.” One could argue that one of the great failures of the design profession is that the focus on deliverables or outputs has dulled the ability for others to make sense of their own worlds — restricting their ability to be creators of their own environments. Sensemaking, if done well, offers a chance for a framework for the co-creation to actually take place, and be welcomed as a part of transformation.

What does our sensemaking framework look like?

Structures (intake, not immediate)
Synthesis (give shape to what’s in hand)
Sharing (ownership only if necessary)
Search (machines calculate, humans find insight)

Simply speaking, it’s just a funnel with an intention on leveraging the technologies at hand (analog, digital, and collaborative) in order to make sense of items and put them in a posture for others to be able to add them to their own frameworks. So far, it’s been a pretty successful framework. But, it could use some more exercises. All senses should be exercised. And what works gets evangelized until others remix to their needs.

Ambient Computing Canvases

Tue, 03 Aug 2021 22:10:00 -0400

What if tablets are the canvas for ambient computing behaviors; not an analogous replacement for laptop/desktop/mobile’s client-networking shape?

There was a context, a little more than a year ago, where our workspace evolved from one tablet and a mobile to a more expensive, multi-modal experience. The workspace, (meaning really, the hardware being used to work on) expanded because there was a need for more screens because of the lack of mature development (justified?) in augmented/virtual interfaces. And so where virtual interfaces could not compensate, or extend productivity, there was the addition of various screens made ready at the point of context.

It’s interesting what contexts look like now… a larger tablet as the primary, occasionally offloading work to a stationary desktop (software reasons). In the second context there are two tablets, where luxury/recreation is the primary driving focus. The mobile and wearable are the accessories to this. Occasional camera and accounting agents, they sit in this space mostly because the table’s software has not matured such to get rid of the phone, nor is it as personalized as the wrist wearable.

All of that said, there are now three tablets in rotation. One for work, one for recreation, and the oldest one now playing duty as a recreational and beta workspace (currently iPadOS 15 Public Beta). This is not to dissimilar from what is seen from Star Trek: The Next Generation (ST-TNG)… or is it?

In ST-TNG, tablets extend a readily-available ambient computer. The concept of mobile, or desktop, doesn’t really exist. At least not in that function in ST-TNG. There’s the ambient system or platform driving the ship or campus, and tablets of various sizes are utilized for the kinds of input, analysis needed when micro-level tasks or decisions need to occur. For this to work, users of the platform need to have a macro vision of what they would like to do, but also a framework that allows the smaller, more mobile tablet to extend how they get there. Their ability to be agile is more (?) valuable than their tool. One could imagine some lower level of “the prime directive“ is the enabler to such macro knowledge; which later becomes codified, or at least provoked code and tools which enable platforms for supporting learning, enabling, and connecting with groups far outside of your own.

Within such a thought, we can probably see how the idea of desktop and mobile become antiquated if the tablet truly does connect to a platform which has all that is needed to develop and deploy. In this context, several tablets connecting to a platform don’t need to be a computer in and of themselves, but merely an enabler for what the person who wheels them is trying to enable the ambient platform do.

The challenge here is now answering the question, “what exactly does a tablet enable?“

Been chewing since this listen earlier // If the uniqueness of the iPad were pushed // Would the table fail // Not because it isn’t worth it’s expansion of computing // But because it exposes // How much hasn’t expanded // Within and outside of ourselves (tweet)

If the perspective is somewhere along side “deep thought“ or “metamorphic tablet canvas“ then we probably get to an aspect of computing that is one part logical, but a greater part subjective to the user/composer of the thoughts on the screen (does it even have to be a screen to be a tablet). Or, if the perspective is that a computer has to equal some sense of calculation or productivity, then is the tablet doomed to be perceived as a failure unless it completely usurps the desktop and laptop, it makes itself more “at the moment“ then a mobile? Or, is it possible that the tablet can live in the middle of all of these questions, skillfully being exactly what is needed, get exposing the edges for what is not? Is the better question about a tablet that it actually sits in such a space that it causes the nuances of mobile and laptop/desktop (keyboard/mouse) computing to be exposed?

Using the framework that an ambient platform can enable a tablet to be a lot more, one could probably perceive the services arm of Apple becoming something more like the computer in Star Trek the next generation. Not necessarily something that knows everything, or leaves the human contemplating, interpreting, and solving out of the equation. But, with the appropriate and contextually relevant piece of technology in hand, enabling that human to literally reach to the outer edges of their own universes.

With that said, let’s come back to the question: “what exactly does a tablet enable?“ Well, the answer is actually almost as simple as the tagline that went along with Star Trek: “to boldly go where no one has gone before.“ And if that was something already imagined and executed with a laptop or mobile, then the tablet doesn’t so much fill a gap as much as it exposes that we’ve not been using the mobile or the laptop as good as we should have.

Slowness of Competence

Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:03:56 -0400

One of the challenges found when involved in transforming organizations is this analysis of the friction, or speed, which comes with changing behaviors and perceptions. Often, this can be perceived as remarkable because of the lack of speed activated, the immense depths of structures, or even an admission towards entropy (ignorance?). Nevertheless, ‘competence’ is a challenge one must bear record and determine success or not-quite-as-successful. Otherwise, what passes as competence when change agents are present, merely shows as a memory of what shouldn’t be not long after they have left.

Change agents, when they are analyzing the friction that new behavior or perception cause, can often be their worst enemy. How? Because the speed and adaptability that makes this change agent appropriate for the task, also puts them ahead and behind the group that they are in charge of fostering towards that behavior or perception. Those folks who have been around long enough will realize that they are both ahead and behind at the same time; and have to navigate communicating while also not thinking for their customer.

On the other hand, change agents are also adept at recognizing the immense depth of workflows and structures that prevent actualized change from being recognized. This ability to perceive the depth and width of structures is another challenge for this change agent. Not so much because they speak with depth and accuracy, but they need to realize a means to curtail that depth and accuracy in order to steward change in a language best received by their client.

Lastly, this change agent has to be honest with what is being told to them. For many organizations and teams, they often evangelize change, innovation, or modernization. But, when you get down to the nuts and bolts of who they are, they will often admit that their success is due to accident, or to ignorance or two some kind of uncontrollable luck. This should not discourage the change agent. In fact, this should encourage them that they are indeed competent enough to follow thru with the desired activities. How they do this… a bit of self-awareness, a bit of self-marketing, and other items outside of the frame of the client-customer. Only, then can they find just the right tonality with which to engage not only the journey at hand, but have something left to record the lessons for the next moment.

To these points, competence it’s a slow burn. It’s very quick to be described, very quick to recognize the lack of it. But, to become the thing that happens after the change agent has left (“the person who puts down the gravel after the change agent has cut the road“), is to become hewn and sharpened for other journeys, other environments. Slowly. Deliberately. Intentionally.

Blank Slate

Tue, 06 Jul 2021 20:52:10 -0400

Looking at the notebook, the calendar Blank slate

Am comparing to the previous endeavor maybe a bit too much. Used to write, produce, and travel to share. Haven’t dont thst as much since tuning things here. And yet, there’s still a want (not always need) to sharpen the palette thru moments of being exposed to other people, orgs, and contexts.

It is great to come into a space, have an expectation, and a whiteboard sketch or conversation later, it turns into something different-yet-similar. In what had been thought of as this forward pushing space, Avanceé was also a hope to be less chained to the conventions of whatever passes for now.

Looking at the calendar, the notebook Scribbled fate

For as clear as re-engineering complexity can be. It is also a bell-toll for another kind of discomfort. Discomfort with the pace of change. Discomfort with the spaces allowed and pushed. Discomfort. Right up to a point where it’s pressing down hard enough to force a transformation.

Looking for what forces transformations can be worthwhile. It can also be terrifying.

🖋 Speculative Fiction: OIF Agent

Thu, 17 Jun 2021 07:45:00 -0400

Elements in this come from an existing project; however, nothing from said project or persons involved is directly mentioned or implied to within this story. This is (mostly) a design exercise.

The agent takes a seat near what was once a lake you could barely see the far edge of. You can see all of the shorelines now. Today looks like it’s going to be hot, just like previous days. And with the diminished quality of water in the region, it’s going to be more important they are able to connect their clients with the new state mandated resource measures in addition to the usual check-ins. As the agent puts themself in position to receive updates to the new mandates, their communicator signals another change in policy.

“Those who were previously vaccinated against the 2020/21 strains of the corona virus must revalidate their vaccination status with their closest insurance carrier.”

Since the nationalization of medical insurance, it has been a pretty common occurrence that those persons who have previously had checkups, vaccinations, or even a change of family status, have had to re-validate in order to continue receiving national and state support for medical needs. CMS has become a challenging, but fruitful partner with these endeavors. Often, their agent’s ability to not only navigate the regional policy changes, but also quickly identify and connect with those to whom those policies would have negative consequences has been a beacon in these challenging times. For example, national and state measures such as the recently updated license for manual control of automated driving and transport vehicles have made it difficult for some of CMS’s clients to meet with the best insurance carrier for their needs. CMS agents have become threads to these benefits for many, especially those in aging and recently-isolated communities.

The agent finishes the mandated 10 minute meditation session before reviewing the days client itinerary:

Lucy S, 64 with family threads of circulatory issues
Haurmi H, age unknown, recent refugee, needs medical profile
Damion A, age restricted, veteran
Clark K., 90 and looking to move into assisted living
Clark S., 60 and looking at wellness options now that Clark K. will be moving out

The good thing about this list, the agent knows only two of these will be long conversations - likely the Clarks. But, they have to travel to some of the most extreme ends of the region. This state in particular has recently enacted travel and automated speed restrictions. The agent usually doesn’t have to worry about the tolls, but the speed restrictions do hinder timeliness. At least one of these meetings might slip in the recommended appointment window. There’s also a potential for electrical outages. The last time they traveled across this region, they were in the middle of a data transfer when an electrical storm stifled connections. It took four hours, plus a few quick classes in SQL-for-Gov to work out a solution with OIF (the Office of Information Facilitation). The agent checks their communicator for the backup readiness, and sets up an additional battery bank, just in case they need to “go manual” and connect using the less secure cellular option.

The OIF has been looking forward to getting more reports from agents. Since the major reorg a few decades ago, an increase in the ability for agents to address issues in the field has led to a total reshaping of how CMS measures success. Before, there was a harder line of operation between departments. Groups such as CMMI, OEDA, and OIT knew there needed to be more connective measures between their groups, but the shape of the org made that difficult. A radical idea - an adaptation of Rendanheyi - changed not only how CMS worked, but how CMS shaped Medicare and Medicaid as a necessary and fulfilling part of the nation’s new definition of wellness. On a day like today, the OIF is getting a chance to see yet another agent be a manifestation of this new posture.

The agent is part of OIF’s class number three. What OIT used to called NEO, the OIF has resorted to a simple numbering system. They are running concurrent tests of a few proposed career tracks, alongside a new distributed communicator. This communicator combines the security of the gov ID card, along with a feature adapted from Estonia’s cephalopod framework. Essentially, each time the agent passes thru certain frequencies of light, it squirts “ink” into that frequency. That “ink” validates the agent’s status, traces their location, and also ignites a bilateral org skeleton - one half which manages client data and interactions, the other half which manages the agent’s employee information. Neither of these halves touch. The “ink” is the only tonal record and that too is temporary. Much like any radio frequency, it dulls over time, can be mixed with others, etc. OIF believes they have developed a means to capture the most important tones of an agent’s ink, and is able to use this within the bilateral-like platform to learn and improve operations at nearly the speed of the agent making connections with clients.

The agent has made it to the first client. The weather is still holding well, but the time it took to get to this client is concerning. The communicator is already showing recommended movement for the upcoming appointments. One of them is already blinking, indicating that the appointment window is not favorable. This might not look good to their management profile. But, this is the human side of what’s been automated. perhaps the agent will have a few minutes to call that client and maybe they can quickly find another window before the day closes.

The OIF has been working hard on understanding these scenarios. The software has been restricted from making too many decisions for the agents (it has been described as “aggressive” by several information officers). There has been some early data from class number one towards the empowerment of agency when needing to reschedule or adjust appointment windows. However, this change in the analysis of “ink” has been a hard one for some of the contacting groups to adopt. When OIT broached being human-centered in the early 2020s, it was these kinds of revelations which opened CMS’s eyes to what cannot be so easily programmed. Since the inception of OIF, the philosophy of being life-centered has taken this approach to levels not previously dreamt. Contractors working with “ink” not only need to consider the wants of policy, but also the wants of the agents, clients, and even client’s living arrangements. The amount of data is enough to make anyone’s head spin. Procuring the services of contractors who don’t just understand being life-centered, but actively do it themselves (this is a contract requirement for both primes and subs, which must be proved by “ink” of their own), has been a tough adjustment for an industry which has also had to learn how to lean on technologies and services no longer sparked by Silicon Valley and MIT - now it’s Nairobi, Singapore, and LaPaz showing embedded systems which live with humans, not dictate them.

The communicator buzzes again. Another policy change. This one effects the agent’s family directly. A new enhancement to the message allows the agent to forward this change to the affected family member, but not in the same language they are reading it. Along with the OIF’s knitting information and operations, there’s also been a significant upgrade to communication practices. Policy notifications to agents are immediately ready for multiple audiences outside of CMS to read, hear, view, and touch (smell-based messaging was used for a while, but the use of some scents created undesired side effects for some population groups). An impressive adaptation of what is left from Facebook’s messaging API, CMS is able to take a policy, and have it transliterated in real time for agents (including their recommended actions), insurers (along with APIs for near-immediate integration), and citizens (across 60 languages and dialects). CMS, as with other resilient government programs, moved slowly-then-quickly to pick up the pieces from the past years of regulatory changes to many of the vendors they utilized. Probably more luck than talent, CMS didn’t just pick up people, but also learned new skills. Rendanheyi showed CMS how to be a different organization, and every level rose to the occasion to become it.

The agent’s heart rate rises, this isn’t good news. Their communicator signals that it’s time for another meditation session. However, a 10min session isn’t in the cards with the movement of appointment windows. They opt for the 2min session (a 6-count in/out versus the 10min visualization session). While their heart rate doesn’t return to normal, it does come closer to CMS’s range for agent work allowing them to continue with client appointments. CMS is trusted by these clients, not making a best effort to meet with them would betray that hard-won trust. The agent understands this. While also noting the serious conversation which awaits them once their workday ends.

Contemplation

Sat, 24 Apr 2021 21:00:00 -0400

Digital Transformation… Manipulation or Decision? Needs more fleshing out… but feels a right direction to peel

From A Future 2021 (#FaF21): Discussions and Discovery on Protopian Themes

Sat, 03 Apr 2021 23:04:00 -0400

Excited to have participated once again with the From A Future discussion/conference. An extremely multi-medium conference, it happens physically in Hong Kong, but virtually globally. Which is good. Avanceé is based in the USA, on the East Coast, a clear 12 hours behind the physical attendees. This lends itself to a unique dynamic - all attendees have to maintain a cross-connect of awareness to what’s happening both in space and cyberspace.

One could admit to some bias in this year’s discussion. The topic - protopia (inclusive, interactive, culture affirming vision of futures shaped by non-white, non-Western/capitalist perspectives) - is one part some of the genesis of Avanceé. Truly, there have been many branches sparked by keynote speaker Monika Bielskyte which have landed here thru discussions, experiments, and projects. Yet still, this bias isn’t a wrong one. One should be looking to a valuing the view of and creation towards futures which are neither dystopian (worst possible for all) or utopian (best possible for an exclusive few). From A Future presented a canvas to navigate several lanes of protopian lessons, all of which are valuable beyond simply having intellectual conversations.

The canvas #FaF21 offered was indeed quite wide and deep. From an engaging and empathy-building discussion by Jeff Rottmeyer of Impact HK, to Joshua Davies impressive use of mmhmm and Otter to orient the group to the matrix of conversational intent vs performance, the early discussion might have felt more grounding w/n oneself than a vision of a future self. Next discussions on education (or learning vs education vs…), the elements of and decisions sustainable movements cause, and a topic of aliens (missed by this participant, sleep did call) continued to shape the conference’s intention to not just converse about wanted futures, but drive participants to consider their roles within it.

The continum given by Jon Alex’s topic of understanding citizenship as the age after capitalism, into Bielskyte’s keynote to which I (Antoine) was invited to share the stage and discuss lessons, frameworks, implications of protopia could be perceived as both fulfilling and challenging. There’s a difficulty in finding one’s place, while also shaping this space. Writing this as Brandy’s cover of the Sounds of Blackness hit Optimistic plays, this song is exactly what one cannot help but to contemplate and feel after both of those discussion concluded.

Several hours, and many presenters, later awoke in time to hear David Goldsmith reshape everyone’s perception of “being outside of the box.” There is no box, there is just you and your curiosity or willingness to expand. And then Avanceé/Antoine gave a small demo of spatial connectivity in tech and notes thru sharing #FaF21 notes and concepts created within Muse. Wild how Goldsmith and Avanceé presentations synced, maybe it was due to sitting in the same time zone, and being opening to the intuitiveness and wisdom granted by sharing this physical/online space.

Unfortunately, cannot speak to the day two activities of building/modeling protopian concepts. Surely, if any attendees are on Mico.Blog or Twitter, replies can capture the bounty offered in those design thinking-like activities. From the group chat, it seems like it was an amazing and worthwhile experience.

There is not likely to be a recording available. Unfortunately, the conference was Zoom-bombed and while there is a recording before and after, am not sure that it will not be for a while if it’s posted as the post-production to knit two recordings, and pull off an overall piece able to be shared. It might make for a better route for folks to visit Posit Place and follow the meetups and discussions thru their various social channels (IG, Discord, Twitter, Clubhouse, etc.). There is a Twitter list, with some of the attendees/speakers a part of it for following as well.

And about this… well, there’s notes. Appended here is the Muse board spoken of earlier. There’s almost enough there to connect with folks. Beyond that, well, perhaps there’s another shape to connectivity beyond physical and virtual (zoom) which might be in one’s imagination which layers conversations like those found here. Perhaps even, some of those conversations turn into art, entertainment, tools, policies, and other building blocks for the kind of future which is better suited to be authored by those voices currently finding their legs.

Can you imagine answers which have never been? Can you take a step towards the you which has been awaiting to be unveiled? Are you a consumer of this age, or a citizen of the next? What future voices are you enabling, disabling, creating? What protopias are you authoring, or setting the stage for others to build? From this future to the next… what are you a part of?

Where Have the Articles Gone?

Thu, 14 Jan 2021 00:33:00 -0400

No, really where have the articles gone?

They really haven’t gone anywhere. It’s been more case of just collecting topics. And then from those topics looking for what doesn’t just so much generate interest, but what is solid enough to write and be a source of reoccurring knowledge. Not too sure about the visitors here because there’s no stats kept, but one of the important aspects of writing here is being able to go back and learn again from the items which were posted.

One of the topics being explored is on the area of federated/distributed networks. To one extent, @microblog can be considered one of these; but the thought is going a little bit further. Taking some of the impacts of what happens when you remove people from various social networks, media channels, and then a technology like the Internet which is supposed to be persistent, but due to various rules, it’s not as persistent as people would like it to be. What does networking look like when there’s less centralization? That’s a pretty good question, but those thoughts are not quite formalized just yet.

Another topic on deck is that of using an Apple TV as a temporary secondary workspace for someone who uses an iPad as a workstation. To this thought, it is taking the concept of the 10 foot user interface, and looking to see if there are any productivity gains to be had from a device that also has direct input leanings. This is an experiment, but like the previous is not quite as formalized yet as to what direction it will go. What is interesting? The applications which might be most useful when a TV is your secondary screen really aren’t all that explored on Apple TV. There is growth which could happen here.

Lastly, due to the virtual CES event this year, news about what’s happening is a bit slower to catch onto. But there’s one which did catch an eye: Vuzix Lightfield Lenses and Dynamic Glasses. This is something that probably will be in article sooner rather than later. But would rather get these glasses in hand and then begin looking at what an augmented secondary screen could do for the same idea of using a tablet as a workspace, or a 10 foot interface as a secondary screen. Not so much to put directions out front, or even see notifications. But what are the types of use cases in which overlays makes sense; not just in the case of commercial applications?

That is to say in conclusion, there are articles in progress. But not quite here just yet. And when they do returning regular cadence, hopefully they’ll be more than just a few snippets. Hopefully, there will be something worth reading now, and then coming back to reflect on later. Not just because something is an experiment or postulate, but because there is something further to pull out. In this age where things can be so temporary, it does make sense that articles can go to a place where they have something of a longer lifespan.

DTD #2021Resolutions

Thu, 31 Dec 2020 17:22:00 -0400

Do great work Tell your story Deliver great customer service

– #2021Resolutions

2020 Reflection and Rollup

Sat, 26 Dec 2020 21:46:00 -0400

Created w/Muse for iPad

Lenses (Explanation v1)

Tue, 08 Dec 2020 15:12:00 -0400

Been chewing on the pictured concept a bit more the past few months. Thinking through this concept of lenses as a kind of self-corrective element individuals, teams, ans orgs can utilize in order to come to clearer outcomes. But, instead of pitching to the achiever types who are usually fast to take these on, more for the folks who are comfortable, fearful of change, and often feeling like life changes on aware.

One lens aims to clarify a perspective for one role of folks. It asks questions such as:

where is the role spending time
what are the realized gaps at the intersection of team performance and org strategy
can multiple roles be seen in this lens, exposing overlapping skills or missed areas of control

There’s a few of these lenses. And hopefully, they will be able to be layered on top of one another, then adjusted (dialing) for clarity. Much like the concept, giving a dynamic perspective and elevating vision beyond the 2D judgements we often give it.

Because, there’s a sense here: within a spatial view of one’s environment, they can diagnose, correct, learn, understand the past while plan for several futures… they’ll have a lens to see.

Updating A Few Experiments

Mon, 16 Nov 2020 21:05:02 -0400

The pace of posting here has certainly slowed down from the first years. In part due to activities outside of this venture, but also some sharpening as to what this space should be for — namely, innovations in thought and experiments. Since this venture started, a goal has been to begin (yet not always finish) experiments which might lie a bit further outside of the scope of what teams and companies can pull off. Then from those, apply to clients a way forward which seems (to them) simple, but has been informed from those efforts.

That said, a few experiments are still in play, and it’s worth a small update here as both bookmark and push to finish:

GoTenna and Mesh Communications (in-progress) A recent acquisition, the GoTenna mesh communications platform has enabled revisiting past lessons on mesh and distributed communications, while also looking at what these products have done to improve user experience, service experience, and financial viability.

Apple’s Scribble for iPadOS (in-progress) The iPad is the workstation for every effort, and the introduction of Scribble as an input mechanism with the latest major update allows for some reflection to what worked with Newton and PalmOS handing writing decades ago, and areas where connectivity and the typed word have embedded more into UI design than we might have noticed. This has been a very insightful experience to date.

Comparing the Ōura Ring with A Mood Ring (evolved) Again with the new and the old through comparing fashion to connectivity. This experiment has been very insightful for several reason, not the least of which being the outright ignorance of thermochemistry in wearable objects. This experiment has been recently extende with the acquisition of a face mask which has LEDs in a similar color range to the mood ring. Communicating outward is the evolved step here.

Tablets Everywhere (completed) At one point earlier this year, there were three iPads, a Kindle Paperwhite, and the Jolla Tablet grabbing various portions of a week’s attention. This has trimmed to two iPads and the Kindle, and yet the framing makes sense for almost every effort. Much like the STNG analogy in that post, there’s acknowledgment of “the right place for the right tool.” But, the connected tablet morphs into what is needed more than its being slammed into place.

Connected Glasses (completed, evolving) A second round of using connected glasses has proven some possibilities and challenges with using glasses as a bridge to experience enhancement. The Vue glasses have made their way into a solid “office accessory” due to their near-invisibility yet functionality. However, like the first experiment with Snap’s Spectacles, the augmentation is borrowing the headspace used for vision gains, but not extending other senses such as propriception, force, orientation, and more. Notifications awareness and memory catching are better described as machine senses, not biological. There’s room to evolve here; especially with adaptive lenses and spatial awareness.

Deep Thought (evolving) This is probably less of an experiment and more of a mode. Deep thought continues to be described as the “yin” to collaboration’s “yang.” And this isn’t wrong, it just is not the most complete shape of what it means to derive something harder from it. As a UI paradigm there is a simpler route than describing and enabling what makes knowledge work valuable. This will constantly evolve… it is the closest work to the core of what makes Avanceé viable.

This is good, but needs to continue to go forward. The upcoming work feels to be the most exciting yet.

Experiments with GoTenna Mesh

Sun, 01 Nov 2020 19:12:00 -0400

Many years back, in a previous endeavor, had looked into the potential and promise of mesh networking and decentralized communications. Besides the (usual) fun of something new to tinker with, there was a sense of being on the other side of the coin to what the consumer Internet had evolved towards.

There were some worthwhile experiments and experiences going down that path. Some of which were the very seeds of this site and endeavor now. Yet, that appeal to both plan for the worst, while tinkering around the edges still hasn’t left. As such, have decided to take a look at GoTenna Mesh.

GoTenna is a mesh networking platform utilizing a combination of a piece of hardware, and some (repurposed) radio spectrum. And while it is clearly a solution for those who like to camp/boat/climb/etc in remote areas, there’s a bit of a ‘hey, this should probably be a part of one’s emergency communications bag” also. There’s a little of both in the context of this play now, which is where this post comes in. The consumer internet is evolving, and mesh networking might be a very solid tent-pole for a normative part of it.

Setup of one’s Mesh device is fairly simple. You download the app, and then it walks you thru discovering one of the two mesh devices you’ve purchase, charged, and powered on. Once you have completed setup, you can device to either use your existing phone number, a generated ID, to be the means you connect with/be found by others who have a mesh account also. Decisions such as whether to share your location, upload your address book, and utilize the “shout” broadcasting service are normal fare for any social network, and is the case here. But, these are opt-in. You can be as present as you’d like to be, or need to be, when using GoTenna. There is also a premium layer to the service which enables an SMS relay service, alongside a few other location-based services. Pretty neat overall, and clearly a solid fit for adventuring.

This experiment will hopefully get to play with most of these bits. Much like the previous experiments with FireChat and Nokia”s Mobile Web Server, there’s a distinct appeal to a “net you have more control over.” One which is resilient, but also covers the bases in most aspects of user experience. I imagine thst GoTenna should roll well for sometime. Hopefully, it will not become a primary service, for an extended period anyways.

The experience so far has been fair. While there’s some fun in using GoTenna, there’s not yet been much in terms of interacting with others on the platform. That might not be for long. According to this map, there are quite a few nodes not too far off from my usual location (might have made a good stitch between larger nodes as a matter of fact). The app is simple, though clear memories of some of the challenges non-mainstream comms app creep thru a few UI paths. Still, it’s learnable, and mostly easy to use. The hit on the mobile’s battery was impressively low, but (in this user’s case), the app and service being tied to the mobile and not able to go to a cellular watch (or tablet?) kinda feels like a missed opportunity. Mesh networking around all the devices would be an impressive platform extension.

If you are interested in learning more, check out the GoTenna Mesh website. And if you decide to purchase and want to support this site in doing so, use this referral link to get $20 USD off your purchase.

GoTenna has not paid for this post, nor was the mesh device or any software associated with it provided to me/this site as compensation for this review. This was purchased by me/this site, and these views are shared w/o their previous knowledge or review of the content.

Scribble and the Challenge of Input

Thu, 17 Sep 2020 20:03:00 -0400

On this, the day after the release of iPadOS 14, am engaging in a bit of an experiment to see how far and wide the Scribble feature has to go.

It is cool

But not polished…yet.

Once immersed in Scribble (for iPadOS), you begin to realize how some apps are mere adaptations of a indirect (⌨️, 🖱) UI, and others (better) embraced touch & gestures. The irony of scribble might be exposing an over-due investment in spatial UIs for multitouch thru using a pen

And weirdly, this is most clear in the micro blog app. Here, you get the right sized screen and spacious writing area, however you also get the keyboard which pops up unexpectedly. You also get the “I ran out af horozonttal space but now I write on another line” effect that is disruptive. Then there is also misspelling or that mix of print and cursive which leads to misspelled everything. Today, the editor takes the moment off to see if Apple took of it out a auto-correct job (the editor stays employed, with a raise).

There is a return to the immersion of handwriting though; which is pleasant despite the sound of plastic tapping on glass. This is a different kind of learnig how to do handwritten. Not too different from Palm and graffiti and not close either. There is immersion which can be had again in blogging with this.

There are more and better impressions in the attached. More things to not only discover, but refine in terms af usual us “sometimes " UI behaviors.

The onus is on developers to mature in their handling of input. And for Apple to be smoother about what exactly is capable when immersion and a morphing canvas really do open possibilities.

Essential skills for Knowledge Workers

Sun, 13 Sep 2020 20:10:04 -0400

Was listening to a podcast recently by the good folks at Muse and the wheels started turning when they started speaking about building a framing or a better concept around what it means for knowledge workers to improve personally and professionally. This somewhat goes into some previous conversations here regarding the space called “deep thought,“ the behaviors of using a (digital) canvas, as well as a newer points around attention being a spectrum. All of these items form, or are building blocks into what is simply “how do we think.“

When it gets down to it, a knowledge worker is simply someone whose practices have turned into reliable outcomes. And their practices are not necessarily those things which can be measured from/by externalities. Can you really measure the time between ingesting concepts, the subconscious playing with it away from the workspace, and the the spark which pulls it into the conscious frame? No. These are the products of intentions, deliberate practice, and communicating applicable insight. No measurement, but perhaps, there are signals worth regarding, and weighing.

Sketching this concept of essential skills for knowledge workers sounds a little bit less like things that you obtain a certificate or degree for; more like base practices and common abilities, yet where awareness, talent, and/or skill can better over time or through particular outcomes.

So far, the skills are grouped into a few loose categories:

Reading
Writing
Ideation
Time bound
Presenting

There are specific items within all of these, yet not worth discussing those now. Still working on some of the finer bits.

Beyond those are two items which do have an external facing loci: active listening and experimenting. Both of these are items not necessarily measured, but can be perceived by others as the product of those forementioned items. And it’s possible in the mist of doing one or both of these two, the practice that is “knowledge work“ begets a type of shape understood by the worker, and also by those observing/consuming the work.

There’s more to be uncovered in this thesis. Certainly there is more sitting on both physical and digital whiteboards than what has been explained here. Sketching a clearer view of these essential skills may offer some types of persons who are in knowledge working the fields a bit of a framing to on their own career journey, while also folks who are in design and policy spaces a better box to sail toward.

That last sentence is a tick more key to current work: how to enable fields such as design and policy to shape a better understanding of their “how,” rather than just their outputs.

Focals & Optical Wearable Challenges

Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:58:00 -0400

There’s something a bit rough and almost ironic about hearing about optical wearable companies no longer going forward. One would imagine, if they offered the advances in connected vision, they’d almost see coming when products are/aren’t viable.

@JoannaStern via Twitter regarding Focals by North

But this is the actual challenge with these kinds of explorations and experiments, especially in a space so personal as wearables. The route to profitability, reputability, and varying levels of customer acceptance is not a simple one. In order to maximize prospects on any of those areas, there’s got to be great levels of focus, and even greater levels of restraint.

In this viewer’s opinion — one who uses both [Vue Glasses](https:/ vueglasses.com) and Snap’s Spectacles — there wasn’t as much simplicity in focus from the folks at Focals by North. Was it for directions, or for notifications? It needed a secondary controller, which was not as sleek/stylish as the primary. There was no voice-controller, the ring control was it. And lastly, where it had a good leg into wanting to be a part of using Amazon’s Alexa framework, those bits didn’t materialize and it was left using a homegrown operating system, and building both viability and reputation without others names.

Now, Focals seemed primed for some good steps forward when looked at its purchase by Google. However, aside from the laser tech for the augmented vision, there was not much more on Focals which was not already on Google’s (still shipping) Glass v2 product. Unfortunately, things changed and what was a “phasing out at the end of 2020” now is a “phasing out at the end of July 2020.” Tough for the folks who purchased this highly personalized product… perhaps also for those who have been looking at optical wearables as a “next step” for wearables, but missing what simple and focus might need to look like.

What does simple and focus look like? Or, what challenges can be met?

Base functionality should not depend on proprietary tech. Meaning items such as being a replacement Bluetooth headset should use normal BT protocols. Audio controllers might be touch or gesture based, but these too should be hooked into standard audio controller APIs.

Features such as augmented vision might have proprietary bits, but file transfer from the devices should leverage normal OBEX and similar protocols. I’d imagine that Focals, much like Snap, wraps videos and images in their own format for ease of working in their specific operating systems. Other special features would be what the company adds, and this would be the piece the companies would either rise or fall with their unique value prop.

All of this to say, no one wants their companies to be acquired and/or stuttered. However, to be a product which survives long enough to be valued, you’ve got to do more than just release everything you imagine. Find the sim0e thing on top of the basic thing, focus on doing that extraordinary well. And then build out from there. Focals, in my opinion, had the augmented vision, but should have went with Alexa integration harder than anything else. Sizing, the shopping experience, etc., all of those are great, but would be bette for a second generation release, not a first. Still, they shipped, sold, and were acquired. To that end, perhaps it was a success.

Would have been better for them if they could have see this end of things occurring.

WWDC and Frameworks

Sun, 05 Jul 2020 22:06:00 -0400

Still trying to come up with some collective thoughts that makes sense around WWDC. But, the fact of the matter is, as much appreciation of the design and “all trains into the station feeling” from Apple’s platform, not really get a sense just yet they are playing their best cards.

Part of this is from being involved with software development; when it is done well, the thing that you are able to present is rarely as polished or as finished as well seen. From just some current projects, and preparing a few teams for demos, one can be rest assured that even though there are some features which have made it to this point of readiness, there’s still some minutia to be discussed and investigated. The public beta does not cut these points short, but it too is not really aligned with what the platform is actually doing at this time.

So what is the platform doing at this time? Or really, what can be learned from Apple’s explorations “this year“ into bringing its platforms into further alignment with one another?

One thought, that has been lingering for the past few platform revisions of iOS, is this thought of using multiple senses in order to do the thing that is regarded as computing. Instead of giving a prescription to what they want users to be able to understand and do, Apple seems to be more set upon delivering a set of frameworks, allowing those who are already curious to discover better ways to interact with these machines and services. And if those ways are not just discovered, but strengthened, then a new language (a better language?) for computing can begin to arise. Something perhps not different from their vision, but maybe pushed forward by other peoples imagination, more than/not their own.

This concept of frameworks is probably something worth coming back to a few more times. But, it seems to make sense here in this case. Apple is not merely saying “we wish for you to do computing the way that we envision it.“ But they seem to be gong the route of something a bit more…

…integrated.

Electricity’s Equivalent to Plastic

Mon, 22 Jun 2020 23:19:00 -0400

The rise of the eBike. More specifically, a return to the electric bicycle and electronic propulsion as a widely available option in general. There was a time, approximately a century exactly ago, when it was not certain whether the internal combustion engine or the electric engine would went out for a transportation option. There were definitely suitable moments for both to be the dominant option. But the internal combustion engine had a more political, and one can argue “grounded” place in the rising economy of the USA in the early 20th century. And while it is clear that the internal combustion engine has won for transport; was also been very clear (even before the pandemic shook oil supplies in demand globally), electricity propulsion is something intriguing enough. It is something, powerful. It is something, which conjures a question “what would’ve happened if electricity won over the internal combustion engine?”

This is not a question that you come to quickly. There is a matter of several dominoes which have presented themselves on a whiteboard before this moment. The first of these has been the adoption of an electronica bike as a transportation mechanism. Globally, the sales of all bicycles are down. But we looked at in segments, the sales of ebikes are up over 85% year over year. In some places, ebikes outsell their analog equivalents 4 to 1. This is not simply a “option” taking place. There is a preference and a priority that is being fulfilled. Whats being made of these elements remixed anew?

Whiteboard Questions

Also on this whiteboard is a question, a series of questions actually. One of them being the topic stimulant of this article, “What is electricity’s equivalent to plastic?” If electricity were to become the dominant transportation mode a little more than a century ago, along with the fact that it became the housing/business grade stitch, what then would that have create it?

Imaginations run the gamut from gravitational wave engines for air travel, to thermochromatic clothing, to misadventures in oil (perhaps missing the discovery of tape, glue, Post-it notes, super soakers, and several other products today that we take for granted). and all of these are indeed possible imaginations to never come to pass because of the route that was taken to be in oil based society rather than (or in opposition to) electricity based one.

What electricity as a base have made for faster development of communication technologies? Would we have gotten to “the Internet“ faster because we already were at radio waves? we have skipped ahead of broadcast television, and move more to the table like model of more narrow cast channels in media possibilities? Would music have evolved the same way that it did (slave/negro spirituals turning into blues turning into jazz turning into branches of gospel which later became rock ‘n’ roll, R&B, pop, explorations with keyboards and 808s, and more)?

On this whiteboard, there is an even more impactful question. How does noise-vibration-harshness (NVH) become defined if the electric drone of an engine is the normalized sound for the primary mode of transportation? Vibration and rhythm internal combustion engines gave also became the foundation for many types of “feel” associated with everything from music, to luxury, to even feelings themselves. Ironically, am reminded of a paper read during college years which said that all music came from railroads (the author made a connection between the inherited beats of music that was popular to their ears with the cadence of a railroad; very much had fun tearing that paper apart). There is a difference to the frequency of electronics then there is to the frequency of those things which are “oil based.” Would we have developed the same types of feeling?

Summation of Imaginations

These are all excellent questions. In fact, these are the kinds of imaginations which enable us to re-engineer some of the things which feel as if they are more complex. For example, does someone need to haul car, or can an eBike fulfill local transportation needs? Taken from the perspective of cost and ability, it is very possible that the eBike does more than enough. However, taken from a cultural history, the oil based auto has a very firm hold on what it means to not only have capability, but also what it means to be secure while promoting a type of affluence/reputation. EVs (primarily cars) are just now getting to that point. The ebike has a long way to go to shift such a perception.

Working on a review of an ebike, these are the kinds of imagination questions which come forward. It’s very possible this equivalent to plastic (this great invention that is so mass produced, so customizable, so widely available) has already been invented, just forgotten in the annuals of history or dismissed in the folders of capitalism. There’s room for something new to be imagined. Room to explore what it means to have an option besides pulling old bones from the ground. What if instead of pulling bones from the sky, we begin to understand magnetism, plasma, and other properties of the air? What if electricity is the means by which we figure out just how versatile humanity can be?

Transformation from Middle Management to Automation

Mon, 08 Jun 2020 07:36:00 -0400

Was talking with a former client recently on the topic of about the transformation that is happening within their companies. As part of this conversation, we touched on the incoming addition of automation (this includes the use of machine learning/artificial intelligence, including the usual topic about macros, automated actions, etc.) to a lot of the processes that they would usually hire “middle management“ for. It sounded like an acknowledgment (from one small business owner) to an incoming reality for many industries; even though this business owner has been doing this kind of work for some time. In fact, Avanceé was hired to demonstrate how some customized automated processes could fill gaps where former employees managed items. Suffice to say, our conversation topic, was also an acknowledgment into a new business reality: middle-management is being automated, not industries.

Can this observation be expanded to a broader industry contacts? Probably. It takes a nuance perhaps. Is there something in the nuance which is realistic? Definitely. And one does not have to look any further than the term “technology.“

Applied Tool

Technology being defined as applying a tool to human facilities in order to improve productivity toward such a task. It does not necessarily mean computer technology, even though our modem context relies on that definition. A probably better context for today would stand in the term “connected technology.“ Here we define not only computational technology tools, but aspects of network workflows happening across several types of calculators in order to streamline, perform, validate, and/or regulate a number of tasks and resulting behaviors.

Defined like this, connected technologies sounds more like an omen for such a change. If one looks at the history of “middle-management,” you can see from as early as a biblical reference in the book of Exodus how middle-management was designed, or purposed, to make more efficient the regulation of complaints to a single vision-holder/figurehead. Moving a bit further to more modern times, one can see the rise of industry (1860s to 1920s) as a novel time to be a middle manager. Not only could a middle manager exercise what kind of power to stay relevant. But they also were in prime position to identify the best task to be handled by various skill and experience levels of people. If you will, the middle manager of that time was just as much as stakeholder as the person financing the business. However, they had to rely more on reputation and skill experience for their worth rather than monetary investment.

This mismatch with investment priorities invites middle-management to be defined in the same terms of any other financial investment. If the middle manager can continue to maximize profits, while trimming expenses, then the skills and reputation of that middle manager become more valuable to the investor. If they cannot, then their reputation and experience become too expensive for the role that they hold. Advances in tools and behaviors by middle managers, workers, and consumers change the value of the middle manager greatly.

Middle Management As Technology

One can argue these three work in concert against the middle manager, creating the space by which the middle manager has to constantly reframe their value in concentric worlds often changing quickly around them.

Talented people do not want to be told what to do…”

And that brings us back to today. A global pandemic shifted many middle managers, and the departments and people they manage, into a context where the world has once again changed around them. Those managers who have been able to wrangle family presence, virtual conference software, instant messaging, and even working in obscure hours, have made the most of a challenging context. Those who haven’t, are a casualty in multiple means (their value didn’t translate to a new world, or couldn’t pay the toll to this bridge to it). Company owners, stakeholders/shareholders, who were quick to realize this, and recognize the value (reputation and experience) of these managers re-trained, or refrained their expectations accordingly. Those who also recognize this, and sound software in a better position than those middle managers, made also appropriate pivots. And more than a few cases, the pivot included terms such as automation, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and more.

Refactoing the Middle

That client, a fast mover before this context, had already pivoted to using automation to manage people and projects well beyond their regional ability. Many other companies did the same. We helped them recognize where additional personnel resources were not a value add if more attention was paid to tuning existing tools. And at the same time, that business is all about relationships. You can’t (shouldn’t) automate relationships. You do give a better place to relationships when you let the tools of the age do their part while your personnel adapt and refine their parts.

Middle management has to adapt to a new world we are connected calculators are able to do the thing that their experience tells them their reputation does better than anything else. Where those partnerships succeed, so will those managers. But there will not be as many managers needed in such a world. There will be a need for more engineers, technologist, and social scientists. Does the middle manager transform into one of those?

LMGTFY

Wed, 27 May 2020 00:06:00 -0400

There is always a level of snark when looking at acronyms constituting various attitudes and responses this day and age. Some of those acronyms really are nothing more than language making itself more convenient for highly connected individuals. But every once in a while, there’s an acronym which comes along sounding on the surface like an arrogant response to or from a technologist to someone else. But when you peel beyond the surface, it speaks to a deeper structural issue. One in which it’s possible that the culture which has developed is actually incapable of sustaining itself.

Is every team organization constrained by what they are willing to pursue? Should knowledge be contained in the reputation or accessibility of those who are capable, or the systems that those teams in organizations maintain?

What is the culture of search? What is the culture of a manual?

For many years, have had the approach of designing software and processes which require very little explanation, but the joy was found in the story created in order to explain it. When someone says “let me Google that for you,“ are they also continuing with the story? Or, is the culture-response something more along the lines of “here’s how something could’ve been better designed for you, let me show you?“

A preface to this could be heard in arrogance — part of this composition is drafted before a few workshops where much of the work could be reduced to finding the answer in a search on YouTube. And yet, what people aren’t able to do, what some are paid to do, is to take the impersonal search engine and be a personal search agent. A personal search agent… let me google that for you.

Invaluable Tools for New Thinking

Mon, 18 May 2020 09:07:00 -0400

Looking back over 20+ years of various entrepreneurial and employee pursuits, a common theme of innovation and inventiveness comes through. At various stops, a way of thinking or method has been taken from inside the head into something applicable for others to employ. From a thought to a tool if you will.

One could go their entire career using tools created by others. But, when given the opportunity or the challenge to create tools from their own experience or expertise, they fall flat. This might be because the way many of us were educated, we were taught how to use tools, but not really given a sense of how to create them. Hence, a wonder about this post-pandemic phase of productivity for knowledge workers:

will new thinking and activity/behaviors come from the sense-making and tool-making which is imagined by only those who are able to create them?

This gets into the crux of a few projects currently and past. In one endeavor, it took seven years of trial and error, sense-making and obstruction, and a few bold statements which can never be taken back, before a sound methodology and usable tool could be created and utilized. Truth be told, it was a painful process. Anyone who has created a theory goes through several rounds of trying to validate whether the theory has legs. And then when they validate it, there are even more series of validation which comes from others who have interest in (positively and negatively) the success of that validation. For that endeavor, it made a lot of sense. But it took more than seven years for it to validate such that it added energy to a movement.

Many companies do not have that kind of time to wait for validation and application. Design thinking, as one example of a field, has many theories and methodologies. But, very few tools which are usable by those who are unfamiliar with the space. Even more disparagingly, the tools which are available still require more friction than they enable application. One design tool is simply a collection of sticky notes along a spatial plane. And yes, this works. It also requires a level of cognitive gymnastics many groups do not have the time (or do not value the time) in understanding. Therefore, this collection of sticky notes, grouped on a board, gets several remixes. Each one claiming to solve the friction in thinking that the original said it offered.

For Avanceé projects, there is an attempt to overly simplify applicable methods. That is, accessing tools which distill the most important points into a traceable map or matrix the client can own the interpretation and application of. Because of this approach, the client is invited to think along side the solutioning. Meaning, they do not just take the methodology and slap it on top of their organization. They are invited to take the methodology and reshape the tool — a remix. In a few instances, the use of maps, matrixes, and forms combine to be a tool themselves to make a better analogy of the methodology. Skillfully applied, these allow an organization to make sense of what they are making. Or, to say it more directly: reengineer complexity.

Unfortunately, an unsolved part of creating new tools is what happens when the tool maker is no longer present? In every instance, the tool was only useful when its creator was there to facilitate. A hope for current tool in development is the tool’s creator is only needed for the first generation of learners. Afterwards, the tool becomes only a reference point. For this first generation, the methodology becomes embedded or infused into the very character of that first generation. They are empowered to create new tools themselves, but tools based on their reformed imaginations. If successful, reengineering complexity also means reigniting imagination. If not successful, this does not mean a failure in the methodology with the tool, but it does mean a misapplication of energy.

This is the key point about new tools. Every tool that is valuable expands the energy of its wielder. Every invaluable tool doesn’t just expand the energy of its wielder, it creates new energy for those to whom the tool was applied. This is why it takes so long to move from methodology to an applicable tool. Its possible much of the work happening in knowledge-based fields is not actually an energy enabler. Yet, if the tools for thinking were applied differently, there might be less aversion to imagination. Less inhibitors to maturely developing resiliency.

Lessons from Mobile on Medium

Mon, 11 May 2020 14:00:00 -0400

Have been writing for a long time. And it seems as if every few years that writing shifts a paradigm or two. Before microblog, there was a series of these kind of post happening on Medium. Noticed a few new subscribers to the series called “Lessons from Mobile” and decided to go ahead and update it with some of the more forward thinking pieces posted here regarding going beyond “mobile devices and connectivity.”

Feel free to check out the series here; but if you’ve been reading on this site for any amount of time, most of the points may be fairly familiar. That said, there’s always room to expand and hear other ways forward. Let’s see what happens.

Why Keyboards Remain

Wed, 22 Apr 2020 16:22:00 -0400

I figured it out… sort of (thoughts while reading MacStories Apple Magic Keyboard First Impressions)

The “why keyboard is needed for the iPad to be a computer” discussion hits a nerve. On the surface, it seems like a “but the software isn’t designed for touch” argument… but that’s not it, it’s control.

Specifically, a lack of knowing how to control one’s own hands and fingers (appendages). Many, having not been in such a “need to learn” state since being a kid learning fine motor skills, software leaps such as multitouch, gestural, and spatial interfaces show how little folks have actually learned how to use their bodies.

So no… devs can’t push ahead and make better iPad software unless it needs a mouse and keyboard. Why? Because it paints them under the same brush… they have underdeveloped their own bodies. Kids don’t “learn” how to use touchscreens because they are magical, they know them because it’s normal behavior. They learn them becuse they are not restricted to any concepts of “what may be” until it isnt.

We (adults, digital immigrants, etc.) haven’t moved past being kids with controlling environments… and for some, the interface on which the iPad/iPhone is based is a loud, subconscious reminder of that.

The Parlee Cycles and Toyota Prius Project

Wed, 01 Apr 2020 21:43:00 -0400

Reposting from my personal blog — from 2011 — with a few small edits because it’s a view remembered and maybe worth exploring anew

For a number of weeks, on an on and off basis, I’ve been following John Prolly’s documenting of a project he and Parlee Cycles is doing with Toyota. Essentially, what they are doing is taking the ethos of the Prius and distilling that into a bicycle. What they came up with is amazing, ingenious, and to me, points at a possible detour towards the discussion towards doping in professional cycling.

First, the Amazing Notes

When I first read about this project (have been following this site for some time), I raised my eye, but no more so than when a car company usually gets a bicycle designed and made for them – then slaps their labels on them. An exercise, and probably a few components that make the hardcore folks go “ooh,” but at the end of the day its a ride that’s much more the showpiece than it is something to live with. I was surprised.

It wasn’t so much that it was a bike, but that it was to point towards incorporating technologies inspired by Prius design philosophies. In effect, ending not so much with a hybrid bicycle, but one that takes the basic idea of transportation, and pushes it to an attainable and innovative plateau.

Then, the Ingenious Additions

Of course, you’ll have a bicycle made by a (very good) and small frame builder that’s basically funded by one of the largest automotive outfits in the world. So that means that you’ll actually get to pass around ideas that would ordinarily be thrown out because of timelines and the lack of a budget. One of the posts talked about the design of the rear that was to look like the drawing, but was essentially a few pieces of the frame joints welded together.

At this point I should bow out of the really techincally bicycle engineering talk because I go “ooh” and “ok” way too much.

But it was really interesting when they talked about changing the way a bike shifts gears. Instead of simply being able to use your fingers, or doing one of those heavy automatic shifting jobs (I had the Auto-Bike, it was heavy and the chain broke less than a week into owning it), they built a means for the rider to shift the bike by thinking. They developed a system that worked inside of a modified helmet which sent wireless signals to the bike to cause it to shift. All the wearer needed to do was to “train” for about 10 minutes and then they were able to shift. That’s Prius-like innovation in my book.

A Possible Future of Professional Cycling

When they got to the end of the project, my thoughts were going in one direction – and you can blame the Tour de France for it totally: what if professional bicycling added that component where all of the shifting happened from a helmet and their brain waves? What if, instead of simply relying on skill, instinct, and muscle memory, that their brains had to be reengaged to racing because the bike was literally an extension of their brain (not just their bodies)?

I went out on a ride a few days after that post and just kind of let my imagination take over on that thought. Here I am, purely a consumer just riding. Something like using my mind to shift would be too much like a workout. At least at this point. But, I do like the idea of the bicycle (probably assisted by linking it to my mobile) learning how I shift, logging how I ride, and adjusting on the fly faster than I can shift. Like I said earlier, I had that Auto-Bike, it made a lot of sense and added to the fun of riding in a way that shifting yourself just doesn’t do.

But, when I framed it against professional cycling – a sport being marred by doping and banging hard against the physical limitations of the body and machine – it makes all kinds of sense to go that route. Thinking even for something that’s as grueling as the Tour de France, to not only have to keep your body in check, but your mind has to be even more ready to adapt to the course since they would be “one with the bike.” Would there be issues such as small computers making up for mental disabilities in some competitors? Sure. Could that be seen on a brain scan, and probably easier diagnosed than doping? Probably so. Would sure make for a crazy race when the more emotional cyclists throw their shifting out of wack because of how they respond to something surprising.

Where Do We Bike from Here

When I look at The Toyota Prius Bicycle Project, that’s where my mind goes. Not so much that sustainability and efficiency need to be thrown out. At the time of this writing, I’m wondering how that aspect of building and maintaining a bicycle was addressed. But, to integrate those kinds of technologies that could effectively get a person even closer to the road. To take away that last bit of friction and disconnect between thinking about moving and being at a place powered by your body – that excites me about that project to no end. And the best place to see that, with the athletes who seem as if they are admitting that there’s no other place for them to go but towards assisted substances.

Which lands at the rest of us. Can we see something changing about bicycling that should make more sense. Biking because its fun, exercise, or a form of transportation is one layer. But beyond that, is there something that could better improve our relationship to the land under our wheels? Have we truly exhausted the bicycle and how it extends our abilities to travel? Or, as this project seems to indicate, have we not even begun to let loose our minds to the possibilities?

Wearable Awareness

Sun, 22 Mar 2020 11:20:00 -0400

For the past week, have been comparing the use of smart ring (Ōura) and a mood ring. In many respects, both of these devices do the same thing. However they get there by different means. The smart ring is a series of circuits and electricity, analyzed on device, and then passed to another device to be combined with a series of algorithms to give one a trend map of a particular set of wellness parameters. The mood ring, on the other hand, uses a less technological bed. This material, thermochromatic crystals, interacts with the human body‘s temperature and changes color based on it. It is calibrated, like the smart ring, outside of the wearer’s view. But, the meaning it gives the wearer is personalized all the same. Fewer wellness parameters, but also much more real-time.

What’s most interesting so far is the reduced cognitive load of what a measurement might mean between them. If you will, the mood ring more or less expresses your body temperature (and that can, for some people, indicate a state or being). Ōura, on the other hand, is a bit more of a coach for specific wellness events. There’s the sleep report, the weekly report, the poke to either get moving or get ready for bed, the activity goal, and more. None of these are noticed from the ring itself. This information passed from the ring to one’s mobile, and the notification from there. For both, the metrics aren’t what you think about. You stay “in the moment” and the ring’s state is passed to you when you need to notice it.

Which sparked thinking: why wouldn’t a connected ring, like the Ōura, also use the same thermochromatic crystals as a mood ring? The thinking here is that even though thermochromatic crystals are not an accurate indicator of emotional status, the correlation to body temperature could be combined with the active coaching have a connected ring in order to be more present wellness advocate for the wearer. Over time, the wearer wouldn’t just look at the prompts and stats from the networked intelligence of the connected ring to understand their present psychological condition, but also use the transformative appearance of the ring to “adjust their frequency” to stimuli in real time.

For now, am just wearing both on the same hand. And when the mobile is near, am able to make some inferences between the data provided by Ōura and the “in the moment” state of the mood ring. Perhaps, there’s already been an exploration of this kind of dual-signaling and am just on the latter side of what works alongside the other physics caused by batteries, processors, etc. Or, maybe the connection we have to various elements is a route to explore with wearables. A route knitting us closer to not just understanding our own state of being, but how that state is probably much more aligned to unique elements in the organic world around us.

Bonus Bits

Came across this via a friend:

The short-term goal, Mason said, is for UCSF and San Francisco General emergency room doctors and nurses to get a heads-up of a fever or impending illness, not just COVID-19, so they stay home or get treated. Already taxed front-line medical workers can little afford to spread illness among themselves, she said.

The long-term goal is to collect as much data of healthy and COVID-positive patients who wore the ring and determine common bio-marker activity that precipitated symptoms, such as heightened temperature or breathing patterns. Whether they will be able to differentiate the common flu from COVID-19 is unclear.

Predicting coronavirus? SF emergency workers wear state-of-the-art rings in new study via SF Chronicle

If you are interested in assiting this work and have an Oura ring, read more and signup here.

Not reading into this too much, but it seems like am already on the right path. And maybe, just a little bit ahead of where some aspects of self diagnosis may be able to help an even larger problem.

Gravel Bike Stroll 🕶 📹

Sat, 14 Mar 2020 16:42:00 -0400

Posting a bit different than the usual, a video of one of my latest bike rides. Some call it “gravel,” and some prefer the term “all-road.” Both work, because both happened during this roll.

Gravel Bike Stroll

Per the usual, Snap’s Spectacles are the tool of choice for recording. There are a few reasons for this. But, the best reason is simply the versatility of memory-eyes which are in the same position as organic ones. Might be worth shifting to this type of experiential content from time to time. The other types still happen, but it’s in moments like these where the observations shared here are more lived.

Bike: 2009 Trek Valencia
Video: Snap Spectacles, Gen 1

Evolving the iPad Workspace

Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:50:00 -0400

Perhaps what was admired as a teen drives adulthood after all

This could probsbly be considered a response to @brooksreview.net’s 13 Jan member journal; and it’s also a “state of the workspace” piece

When fall of 2019 rolled around without an announcement of a new iPad Pro, I was left at something of a crossroads. Having been waiting earnestly for the next evolution in iPads — to push my own visualization and implementation of computing — I was left somewhat disappointed. Apple’s hardware releases are very consistent. Offering both fan and buyer alike a chance to let rumors stoke fires, while the eventual reality a chance to evolve and reset expectations for personal and communal computing. It didn’t happen like that this fall. Slightly disappointed… just slightly.

Yet, that didn’t deter purchases. The 5th generation iPad Mini entered home-based usage. An evolution of the Kindle Paperwhite for weekend reading, while also a harder break from the iPad Pro’s use during business hours. The Mini and Apple Pencil combination has been a pleasant, and contrary addition. It puts pressure on the larger, older iPhone, asking “what is social and necessary about the larger screen phone versus the smaller screened tablet?” And still, has found a neat niche. It works, and doesn’t get in the way, even if carried with only the Apple Watch during café sessions.

It has also found a niche as a better device for video than the larger iPad Pro. So much so, a purchase of an external screen seems to make more sense than having the larger iPad nearby as an AirDrop recipient of what’s found in home’s moments. Conjuring another screen when the smaller Mini isn’t immersive or dismissive enough sounds like a case of “why not use the larger iPad or a TV,” yet misses the instances where personal becomes a context of “just for a moment of difference” rather than always needed. Scaling up, versus removing to scale down.

An opening to acquire the iPad Pro in Jan 2020 adds to the multiple canvases used across productive contexts. The latest iPad Pro, purchased alongside the Pencil 2 and Brydge keyboard, shapes a picture for something more. The initial thought of feeling like Captain Picard at a desk full of PADDs (defined by fans) hasn’t gone away. In fact, it feels almost right — mainly for the inability of most software to extend as fast as the hardware is allowing. Agreeing with @ben, a workflow utilizing two iPads at the same time doesn’t seem unproductive. In fact, it seems “best case” because of the inability of iPadOS apps to enable casting non-mirrored instances to external screens. It still doesn’t feel correct — just more correct than what I’ve been doing.

That said, the Star Trek TNG reference rolls strong. I’m almost in that posture of saying “yes it makes sense for tablet interfaces to adapt to the needs of the person holding it.” Seeing this when my niece FaceTime’s questions about her iPad (she also moved up, from Mini to the full-sized). There’s this context or multiple iPads and their shaping of a more personal computing context which seems to just fit. Star Trek TNG came out during my teens, and I argue this viewpoint comes from Gene Roddenberry and his team’s keen messaging to my subconscious.

Whatever the shaping of those evenings spent with mom watching her feed her Trekkie nature, what is true is that multiple iPads does manage to reset an expectation around screens and interfaces. Watching Avengers again recently brought this to light all the more. Casting information into space, assuming all who are in that space can interact with it, has been something of a dream for productivity spaces and fictional models for a while. It gets more real as devices like iPads show up not simply as accessories to the tools we have, but begin becoming default states for the worlds we are shaping. These default states offer us a glimpse into the very realities which used to entertain us. Realities I’m noticing a chance to act upon, and become something of a canary for what might be yet another shift.

From A Future

Sat, 18 Jan 2020 00:02:00 -0400

Things seem to be a little bit slow in terms of the new publishing here, but the fact of the matter is that activities happening elsewhere that speaks into why this place matters.

Design thinking, or more honestly, design mentorship seems to be a key topic in terms of professional development and organizational maturity. Some of that comes from the interactions where I am running into people who are both new to professional spaces, and those people who see that some spaces need a more personal touch — humane touch as it relates to creating intentionally, ethical, beautiful products and services.

Some of the conversations are focusing more on the future. How do we get from seeing technology has an appendage to seeing it as a part of who we are and dealing with the successes and ramifications of such adoption. This is actually pretty interesting. And if you follow on IG or Twitter #FromAFuture, you would see some of the conversations as they are happening.

Other aspects of those conversations are happening in the devices currently in hand. From this exploration of having more than one tablet, to being OK with the idea of talking into the air, there’s something to be said about activities happening elsewhere, but manifesting in our future that everyone has not yet realized.

Clearly, having content here doesn’t mean being completely divorced from Twitter. But it does mean to push the future of Avanceé in a somewhat different direction. What is that branch? Well, that’s what this year is all about discovering.

Hearing Sight

Sun, 05 Jan 2020 21:01:00 -0400

Casting new patterns for a new year

The past two years, Avanceé has been something of an experiment, and another part a package. The experiment: to put into a business model, an approach to design and process which elevates individuals and companies from “do what they’ve seen modeled” to “invent and do what they’ve imagined.” Experiments are hard — especially this one where it’s also got to be a package. It has been the “package” bit which has been hardest to clarify for Avanceé. But, that’s ok. That’s why this space was shaped. Hearing what you see is not a simple construct.

In light of this, have had some roaming thoughts of where to take Avanceé for 2020. To some, describing the year as “an invitation to clarity and contentment” resonates. Yet, it’s not clear enough on this site that “designing experiences and (re)engineering complexity” does that. It happens in conversations, and in coaching/mentoring, and in design-birthed work. But, not quiet hearing-seen.

Came across a phenomenon called grapheme synesthesia not long before drafting this, and it seemed to make sense. In the article it was found, the author describes her experience of synesthesia and a tool she’s developed to help others understand it. It was in seeing Avanceé in this frequency that hearing what 2020 could be began to take a better tone.

As much as there’s been the technology and methods talked about here, the things actually heard has been more around coaching, mentoring, and strategy. Much more the “hey, let’s walk alongside you for a bit and figure out what’s actually complex.” And more often than not, one or two conversations are all it takes to unpack — demystify — the wall or speed bump. Is there design strategy and organizational redirection? Sure. But, more of the re-engineering happens as a result of relational stacks, not technological ones.

To that end, let this be a shift to posing more of that relational content here. Maybe more along the lines of what’s shared with current friends and mentees. Because what’s best seen, is often just a better color of what’s heard, At least, for 2020…

image by Bernadette Sheridan’s Synesthesia Project

Inking As Post

Wed, 11 Dec 2019 00:37:00 -0400

written with Tactilis Scribe

Debating A Slight Shift

Tue, 26 Nov 2019 23:26:58 -0400

When Avanceé launched, it was like finally finding shape to the bottom of a very deep well. That well being a mind and set of experiences so unique, it could only be described as “put your mind in a can and make it available to others.” In some respects, Avanceé has been a quiet, small success. It’s garnered no real fame, but amongst those who’ve been engaged since its unveiling, Avanceé has certainly proven to be a demonstrative step forward for their efforts — even if it’s taken a few stumbles to get there.

What Avanceé hasn’t yet become is profitable. At least not in the shape of a few favored (and sometimes too linked) other sites and endeavors. This isn’t for lack of effort. The winds of maintaining a roof over one’s head requires hard and soft decisions. One of those being attaching to more consistent income than the consulting which Avanceé aimed to monetize. This was understood to be a slow build. And such hard and soft decisions were made — in part — because at the outset it was assumed these adjustments would be necessary.

Didn’t expect to consider a more major shift. The one under consideration speaks to a good bit of the coaching and facilitation which has happened. And it’s something less reliant on maintaining a front of being a “business first” endeavor, and more of an “individual embraced” one.

Change is worth debating a bit longer than what’s given here. Yet, it’s clear that for the upcoming third year of Avanceé, for this to be more than a hobby of links themed around the occasional project, it’s got to springboard into a fuller frame. At this point, change and pivot is just a debate. There’s hopefully some time before a decision and road needs to be taken.

Ear Muscles

Wed, 23 Oct 2019 17:33:00 -0400

Leveraging newly acquired Vue glasses to explore other ranges of hearing

Been sitting on how to best talk about these glasses. Sure, there’s the vantage point of Kickstarter as something of a motivator. These Vue glasses have taken the better part of nearly three years to make it onto my head. And this isn’t a slight to Vue or Kickstarter, that’s just the nature of product development which finds itself strengthened or weakened by the same audience that consumes it.

A better focus could be the product itself. Vue has certainly produced a ground-breaking product with glasses which utilize bone conduction speakers and mics. Those who have worn glasses and headphones/earphones for a few decades can empathize with the struggle of segmenting attention and hearing alongside attention and sight. Wireless sound has helped greatly, and yet there’s always the consideration for undue weight on the ears. Glasses have evolved far beyond their “sight impaired” audience beginnings. And here Vue is a solid explanation as to where that can land. There’s some polish to be gained on it for sure; but for the effort, one cannot doubt that making it across the finish line is an incredible achievement for the product and the advances to be gained from the shrinking sizes of silicon.

However that isn’t the right focus either. One of the use cases explored has been more along the lines of extending hearing and focus. For an experiment, allowing the Vue glasses to handle a call or background music while also using AirPods has opened a question: just how much can one’s ear muscles be developed (or underdeveloped) towards focused conscious attention? No conclusions, but certainly some headaches and moments of confusion.

Liken this experiment to focusing on a musical score while someone is also telling you about a movie which has a different score. Just how developed is hearing beyond and alongside focusing attention? Can that muscle be developed? Is there some limit to simultaneous inputs of complexity and making sense of it all?

No clue. And Vue offers the best expression yet of a wearable, connected device which gets closer to “hey, how does your brain actually deal with all these inputs” than others tried before. It just so happens, instead of adding to soundscapes or isolating oneself from them, certain wearables might be at the very place where we can question evolution and postulate other paths. Or, at least be strong enough to hear and lift them.

Indigenous

Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:03:00 -0400

Persuading a designer’s shift from “intuitive” to “indigenous”

Tearing a perspective from history in order to reclaim a voice that should have never been taken? This is a way to describe the Euro-American shift of veneration towards accepted/primary voice on Columbus Day/Indigenous (Groups) Day. It might seem a simple political maneuvering to opine on the topic. Yet this isn’t a political blog, this is a design-oriented exposition. Lessons for what has been happening with perspective on this day follow lessons towards what designers and their industries are learning in regards to the expression of productivity and consumption.

The shift to experience design has asked for companies to acknowledge and invest within the perspective of those closest to the business output — whether this would be the producers or consumers. Open both the business processes and technical competencies to the perspective of these producers and consumers, and allow this to add/shift/remove value from the company’s operating focus. Shift is the right word here. There’s no amount of artistry as delicate as changing behaviors for a culture, and yet experience design asks this very thing.

The result of such shifts are defined in transactional terms. Helpful? Perhaps to the legs of business and technology on this now three-legged table (experience design now becoming a leg of equal value to business focus and technology enablement). However, it may be better defined in the terms of those more native to the intended transaction. Indigenous could be the better word here, even as loaded as it is for political framing. Within design framing, “indigenous” moves us past the ethereal “intuitive” and by importing empathetic lenses to transformation’s voice. Not simply enough to “use the words they are familiar with,” indigenous also means we ascribe to tone, framing, and even acknowledged disassociation — we may be designers but we aren’t designers of other’s comfort, only of the tools they use to craft their own.

In another industry, rap music continues to be debated as a form of music because those who held a primary “this is valuable music” perspective have found their tools to be used to author another group’s expression of being. Shared tools does not mean shared perspective. In fact, the drive to authentic experiences almost never comes from those author the tools. It is designed by the voice of those who wish to express tonal accuracy to their lives, according to rules native to them. And as such, it’s that much more important for designers to elevate indigenous peoples and their cultures.

In doing so, the designer elevates the voices of those once condemned to be heard under a false celebrity— one who might have rightly instigated the perspectives we now enjoy. But, also one who’s transactional nature unfortunately colonized the leg on which we might better find stability and worth.

Visibility, Consistency

Wed, 09 Oct 2019 07:18:00 -0400

Impact isn’t just visibility, but the impression massaged by consistency

In a previous draft of this post, there was a review of the recent pictorial posts on MicroBlog and there were some which held more impact than others. Several familiar faces drew on not just impactful visual artifacts, but a consistency of approach/experimentation which allowed some thing more notable in the tone presented. This isn’t to say that those who weren’t recognized were ignored; only that their visibility hadn’t yet gotten to the point of registering that familiar presence and voice.

A new project is also shedding some maturity towards the impacts of visibility and consistency. Visibility seems as if it is effectiveness. There’s the dopamine-addressed, newness of what is entering the framing. And if done in acceptable, albeit contrasting ways, visibility indeed comes across as if effectiveness is happening.

Growing this endeavor has meant increasing a base level of visibility amongst the intended audience and prospective customers. However, visibility isn’t really addressing whether an impression was made that indeed simplifies complexity. For this, consistency must add to what visibility has begun. One could think of consistency as a massaging of the touch visibility made — however this isn’t a dead touch, or an ignored one. Consistency which speaks to adding value offers presence a place to mature into longing/wanting.

Now, all of this doesn’t matter if you are spending time being visible in places where others aren’t looking. That’s altogether a different bit — context. And probably worth elevating into a more visible layer of discussion here and abroad in the near-future.

On Prioritization

Wed, 02 Oct 2019 20:50:00 -0400

When you get into a consistent mode of behaviors and then life gets in the way, you start the journey again by making an excuse. However, here there is no real excuse. There are several layers of drafts, not in the Microblog application, which are ideas and concepts which have not been completely flushed out. And sometimes those are posted just to keep with the usual cadence. However, this week that is not been the case. There has been a solid challenge to prioritization of content following here. And that’s probably a better description of inhibitors to moving forward than any excuses leveled in writing.

When it comes to writing, working, living… prioritization makes its way into the front of your conscious decisions whether you like it or not. It could be as complicated as which area of a project to begin. It could be as simplistic as looking at the weather report to figure out how you will address your garden. What you choose to prioritize is what you have chosen to say matters. However, no amount of prioritization comes without putting down something else. As a wise person once said, “there’s only so much room in your hands. You can either choose to hold peace, or hold the things that take peace away from you.“

There in lies the challenge with prioritization. What you value is what you eventually prioritize. More often than not, the thing that we value is as close as the item which is in front of our nose. That may not be fair, but given the amount of information that comes our direction, the amount of wants which follow our wish list, we sometimes default to what we can immediately perceive rather than what we truly value.

And yes, we can use the excuse that with certain levels of technology, there is no excuse. A change schedule could mean more time to write and contemplate, but if that does not continue to elevate what you have previously called a priority, then that changed schedule is more accurately telling you what you value. As we noticed with some of the technology trends that have happened, collaboration being put in front of us often leaves us a little time to self prioritize. And yet, the assumption from this space, and even some of the investigation, is that there is room to prioritize those things that matter if collaboration works in concert with deep thought.

If prioritization is in fact a high value behavior, then you do make time for what matters. An excuse, put in the position of a welcome, really serves notice that prioritization is not a high-value item. It would be better off, and perhaps received better, if you simply said that prioritization didn’t matter, and allowed a different characteristic to guide what you value.

Chronophobia

Tue, 24 Sep 2019 08:32:00 -0400

Term comes from the book Timefullness… fear of time and it’s effects

Can remember the moment clearly. Was sitting in the car, traveling on a familiar course of road in Philly, and then it hit me — I will die. I will cease to breathe. The very next breaths were difficult. I began feeling each breath differently for the next minutes. Each pulse as it resonated. Each movement became more valued with this realization. I believe that it was at this moment I not only realized my own mortality, but also just how subservient to time and its effects I will be. As every athlete says, “Father Time is the only undefeated opponent.”

Teams and organizations also come to similar moments, and how they deal with acknowledging this grasp of mortality begins to shape how they operate and what they might leave forward. Those groups who fear their own mortality, might begin to do things such as increase team size (at the cost of company culture), or expand into markets (in order to minimize the effects of disruptive entrants). Groups who sense their coming end might go to more drastic effects — lobbying governments, destroying-then-creating new governments, or worse, committing a kind of suicide. The latter being an action to be remembered for what they did well, and hopefully plant seeds of a remembered legacy for what comes next.

Chronophobia… a word which came into context recently and along with it, these thoughts about the weight and value of time to both individuals and groups.

We are peculiar in some respects. Most of us live within the confines of this temporal plane and do our best to ignore this fear of the effects of time, but we can’t. From adaptive technologies, to rules around ageism, there’s a tact acknowledgement that we are clearly servants of time’s effects, but also that there’s some measure of fulfillment which can come if we don’t live in fear of it, but embrace it.

The social media timeline has warped this perspective for some. In its linear, and unforgiving-to-some, nature, it seems to trumpet the loudest, most profane, and emotional peaks of time’s effects. At its very core, the timeline isn’t under anyone’s control — only your attentiveness to it. But, if you acquiesce to trying to pay attention to every point and wave within it, chronophobia takes hold in a manner it shouldn’t. You begin feeling each text, each tweet, each notification as a ticking clock to your own connected mortality. And this isn’t the best way to live. Sure, a little fear makes sense. But, to be overwhelmed by it will cause you to make decisions, adopt behaviors, or even restrict others from living beyond the warped planes of connected spaces.

Time is such a weighty and powerful reality. It is also a dance partner. Don’t be afraid of having your toes stepped on if you are enjoying the song.

Explaining A Bicycle for the Mind

Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:07:00 -0400

A bicycle for the mind requires a different perspective and disruption

A common question asked around this time last year regarding the (then) new iPad Pro, can it replace your laptop?

An uncommon answer: yes, it can. But, not because it does what a laptop does.

iPad doesn’t just replace, it changes what computing can question. The question gets asked each time a new model or major software update happens to it because the voices speaking about the platform and hardware are too far removed from what others do for. They are also too much embedded into trying to make the iPad do what PCs have taught them to do. These might sound like discerning perspectives, but it’s not distinct to look at a mountain from an alternative perspective. The end of the Mashable 2018 iPad Pro review says it nicely:

…It’s such an intimate creation process that it made me realize that Apple’s not merely trying to change my or your old habits. Apple’s not trying to make the iPad Pro a laptop replacement because the device isn’t one. It’s trying to do something bigger: invent a new way of creating for a new generation that is not bound to the old computing laws of clicking a mouse…

Not being bound to former methods is a invitation to think better about the jobs to be done for computing devices. And for much of what the complaints are (moving files from one physical or virtual share to another, command-scripts for said files, approval queues, etc.), work is more like moving chairs around and a sense of control over the chairs which really isn’t work at all when broken down into its common parts.

The bit about the iPad is that it disrupts the perspective of what it means to compute — to be productive, to push pixels, and to work (however that work’s outputs are measured). This bit becomes more interesting the more someone dives into those who’ve pursued better workflows. From Henny the Bizness, Jonathan Morrison, Federico Viticci, and several others, the perspective of the iPad as a primary device ended up reshaping the tone and tenor of what one becomes within their work.

So, then, what really is work? Or rather, what more aligns with the perspectives of what it means to have computing as a tool to aide/do behaviors considered productivity?

And if a simple piece of glass and electrons can alter the very definition of work; what kinds of perspectives have yet to be discovered which are not only productive, but also sustainable?

For Avanceé, the answer to this seems to point to work being connective tissues. A swaddling of complex and interdependent elements, eventually made unknotted and simple. Work isn’t the end product, but a series of elevating/deescalating layers of stuff until the signal is clear. This work has many forms but the same goal.

##A Contemplative Thoughts Browser

An excellent thread on Twitter by @SamPenrose put to text what a number of folks have had as a confusion/contemplation to the purpose of the iPad. A few of those tweets begat some responses:

Once more, with feeling: what is (the) iPad? A bicycle for the mind. A bicycle for fish. It is wildly successful but “has no reason for being.” It is as clear as glass and as clear as mud. The less sense it makes, the more it sells. Conceptually confused, mundanely great.

Response:

I teach a few executives how to stop diving into the weeds by showing them the flexibility/simplicity of the iPad they wish to carry.

Conceptually, that is teaching to the tool; realistically, it’s showing them how to think.

🚲 for 🧠

Email, games, video and web browing are more complicated cases, but iPad is not obviously the best for any of them. Both experts and average users—in the hundreds of millions—are divided on what they prefer.

Response:

Events and containers… the commentary has indeed centered on these because computing evolved to “instance”

PC hasn’t meant both canvas/pallet. My argument has been that tablets (really, iPad) successfully don’t just straddle that line, but invites something else from it

What it invites seems unclear, but when iPad isn’t asked to replace but augment what 💻 isn’t as good as, then that clarity becomes clearer IMO:

A static/dynamic interface showing/describing and enabling the attachment and reattachment of [stuff] based on where it is in thought

Used this (same phrasing) to describe @MuseAppHQ to a friend the other day, but it fits communicating (more clearly) a vision for iPad

That’s a lot of words to essentially say what @BenedictEvans said in the same thread:

iPad and PC each have things that only they can do. Most people only do the things that both can do.

So to ask again: if a simple piece of glass and electrons can alter the very definition of work; what kinds of perspectives have yet to be discovered which are not only productive, but also sustainable? What becomes of work that’s now described as connective tissue more than inputs/outputs or the resulting widgets?

Remote, Control

Mon, 09 Sep 2019 11:30:00 -0400

Pondering a future of knowledge work, managing flow not controlling it

Thinking about a few recent projects, and a few failed ones, a piece of thought has lingered about the effectiveness of remote work. However, those who engage within remote work are existing in an asymmetrical culture, usually a few generations old, of working in a non-remote setting. Meaning, the things to unlearn in order to work effectively in remote contexts are just as impactful as the new methods and expectations we now engage within. Such a perspective is wrought with challenges, usually verbalized with the phrase “fit.” However, “flow” is probably the better term. Because working away from the boundaries of widgets, time, and place, one needs to create a different relationship with outcomes and opportunities.

Flow is something like what’s been experienced with the app Muse. This app has a premise of boards/cards; yet the strength in it seems to be when you take away the concept of document and replace it with flow. Here, the better parts of association and context get intermixed w/the facility of hypertext and ink to create something jut a bit different. Instead of conforming the reader into a structured reading, they are given a structured context, and room to read into it their own paths. This has only been explored thru testing a beta version of Muse, see their website for the full vision, and to request access to assist in testing.

There’s been some evolution of this control-to-flow concept as Avanceé has been refined. The workstation is still an iPad, yet the communication moves back and forth between hard and soft deliverables. Meaning simply, the role our behavior plays is likely more influential than the containers themselves. Some groups understand this and have literally charted a new world because of it — others are finding their way (Avanceé is the latter). Within the framing that is flow, there’s probably a different metric which needs to be attached to both work and it’s assets.

When it is redefined, what remains is less about get it to me in this format and more about enable me to make the best decisions forward. Knowledge working spaces are shifting to facilitating knowledge — we hope — and not simply repeating the tasks of turning widgets.

Trendspotting

Mon, 26 Aug 2019 08:29:00 -0400

Moving forward by looking backward

When learning to drive, my parents gave me a lot of solid info about dealing with what you can’t control about traffic and other folks on the road. Of the many tips, one of the most interesting had to be about the level of attention to put towards driving out of your rear view mirror. Being in enough rear-end accidents might teach this better than other moments, but it came to be a sensible bit of advice to have 1/3 of your attention to that little mirror facing to your rear. The synchronous lesson was to be like a trucker and have your eyes/attention 12-15 seconds ahead of you also. In this way, you aren’t simply driving for your immediate surroundings, but also for the time-spaces you’ve yet to come to. A lower insurance premium, despite a much-higher-than-usual rate of mileage, seems to count this as a lesson well-lived.

In the same way, there are data points, tools, and methods we ought to use in order to inform forward motion for organizations. More than the data of the moment (current stock price, number of daily active users, last quarter’s numbers), it is the data around this which is better utilized in order to shape how we move forward. For example, a group seeks to make sure an investment continues to show signs of improvement, but notices only that less than 5% of the indices are making a return. But, unless they look at the performance of all of the index investments over a period, they will only make bandage-level changes to the performance of the fund. It sounds elementary, but looking backwards just a bit (how often did the entire fund perform like this, when did the specific indexes fail previously, what was the client or market response when items change, etc.), enables an ability to move forward differently.

However, it’s not simply looking backwards. Reference the leading story of this post — using the rear view mirror was only part of understanding the context of the journey. One had to also look further ahead than all but the very best participants on the road. In the case of driving, the best tractor trailer drivers are the road’s best. Not only because they need to see what’s happening well before it does, but also because they manage more weight (physics) than nearly anything else on the road. For them, looking at what their vehicle has to do 15-30sec before it happens isn’t just a matter of driving well, it’s a matter of staying alive and profitable. Same with utilizing data — while not every permutation is knowable, there are often just enough points to be known that one can see a little bit further down the road than normal. And with such vision, adapt their rate of travel towards a better destination.

In a recent project, a case of looking backwards enabled us to take a significant step forward for several smaller projects which were also suffering. We mapped the notable items, and then went backwards to previous year items to see if any patterns were present. Not only were there pattens present, but also a few previously unknown gaps revealed themselves. This enabled a course correction which might have been seen by only one party. Our experimental dashboard elevated it for several stakeholders to see, and a fuller action plan was developed to address it.

This isn’t to say you don’t look out of the front windshield. Only that there’s more to your journey than what’s hitting that glass. Look backwards and forwards, recognize the context of as much as you can, and then your ability to spot and respond to trends will not only be clearer, but you’ll probably clarify others’ ability to run those trends with you.

Friction Has A Perspective

Mon, 19 Aug 2019 11:06:00 -0400

Perhaps innovation’s perspective is bound by personal friction

One discussion often turns into many. It is excellent when several disparate, disconnected conversations begin to carry a common theme. Not forced, but something more organic. A tweet and it’s resulting thread illuminated an obstacle to a wider change, found on a much personal level — friction.

I am wildly inefficient on my phone. For me, any coordinating or communicating is best done on a laptop. Anyone else feel this way?

@BradFrost on 13 Aug

Thoughts while reading the thread more or less landed here: how does one design beyond the limits of their own cognitive behaviors? Can they if the personal friction that brokers their workspaces is so embedded?

Meaning, there’s probably a clearer reason why some innovations take longer to become “mainstream.” It is because of enough (loud) personal friction by just enough folks isn’t able to be overcome and so a narrative is formed and reiterated. What’s most iterated? That the newer tool/feature/behavior doesn’t do what the old one had done as easily?

It probably magnifies exponentially when a luminary in the (older) method takes the opinion public. At that point it is no longer just one’s personal feeling, but now it’s validated by someone with reputation.

Does it mean we should keep personal friction points to ourselves? Probably not. But, we might be better taking steps forward if we realize that whatever the friction is, has a perspective which might ripple well beyond our own “it feels uncomfortable.” Those who can overcome such a perspective open themselves up to a phase change. The change is transformative, and likely results in an inability to shape themselves into the former behaviors/perspectives any more. Their friction is now in convincing those who couldn’t move past theirs that there’s something beyond where they are. And what’s beyond will likely transform everything to come. Such a perspective is a new measurement not only of success, but of life itself.

Organizational Maturity

Mon, 12 Aug 2019 09:11:00 -0400

Happenstance or happen to have a stance

Reviewing some older notes on organizations and user experience, came across a few bits on the UX Maturity Scale. What’s clear about it is that it’s not so much a discussion on whether understanding user experience is possible or not, but the competence of what’s understood because of the maturity of the organization attending to leverage it.

If one were to view their organization’s processes or departments through this lens, it is possible to uncover aspects of work and process which fit the day-to-day expectations, but result in increased friction towards the very groups the org aims to empower. Introspective? Yes. This lens confronts the org with the very core tenants of their reason for existing. Granted, some might have the stance, we don’t do this for clients/consumer, but for shareholders. Yet, even then, a culture has to mature towards this, minimizing friction in respective spaces until the core audience is consistently pleased.

Beyond the design perspective, maturity looks similar — what are the implicit rules being followed, when do those rules become autonomous stimuli, and when do those become defining character. One could assume that much of this happens by chance. That, at some point in the evolution of an org, certain traits come to the surface over others, creating the framing to which the org will define itself. Yet, it seems that for some of the adored and loathed orgs, this is less random and more structured. These orgs happen to craft some stance on which their very orgs will live or die, and then it becomes so insistent, that aspects of an org which seem they should be unaffected, now conform to such a vision.

Clients and customers feel this. They feel the connect or disconnect from the touch-points of an org and their messaging. It might even be subconsciously understood even if it’s consciously exercised. A company might hold itself to the highest standards of diversity and inclusion, yet have the very difficult task of retention because their hiring processes and department haven’t reorganized and re-measured around diversity/inclusion metrics, still keeping the same friction and KPIs of the very practices and industries they market themselves different than. A company might say sustainability, security, and privacy, yet their most ardent customers degrade, irritate, and unhealthily expose other members with such ferocity that no amount of company posturing removes the friction felt by those being subjected to alternate views. Experience isn’t something found by happenstance, it is very much designed into the very structures of what makes an org live.

Have been giving the uneasy smirk in explaining to organizations that user experience isn’t a product — it is the summation of the client/consumer’s ability to feel/not feel friction between their expectations and reality. To an org which is mature, this isn’t a challenging point of view. It is a level-setting one. If your org believes themselves to be mature, having a stance will cause the greatness that happenstance cannot.

15 Minutes to Add Time

Mon, 05 Aug 2019 10:03:00 -0400

Describing an experimental workshop and a focused destination

In a few recent conversations about the goals for Avanceé, there has been the mention of a possible workshop series based around an existing client activity. Called “15 Minutes to Add Time to Your Life” it is a tech-focused exploration of using a tablet as the executive notebook or dashboard in order to gain efficiencies in relating to teams, or processing the outputs of managed teams. Challenging? You bet. While every leadership guru has something of the same pitch, what sets this workshop apart is a simplicity of focus — specifically on what is gained when an iPad or Microsoft Surface is used as the agent for behavioral change.

Does it work? Early returns are positive in this regard. One person who engaged in the workshop has almost completely removed themselves from relying on a paper file cabinet for colleague historical files (addressing a long-standing PII issue at that firm). Another has taken a smaller, yet no less insignificant step of using the iPad as a second screen when at their desk, but then taking it as the sole notebook (using Microsoft’s OneNote) when attending meetings. The light went off for them when they realized the ease at which they could organize smaller snippets of info, and then recall these via the on-device search. Again, these are small steps, but ones which add up to no more than 15 minutes of instruction — gaining more than 15 minutes back in time to dedicate to whatever needs the attention.

Can this work for anyone? Probably. However, in looking at a workshop series like this, the focus is on executive decision making and behaviors. Why this group? Because it is at this level were macro-decisions turn into a cacophony of tasks and expectations for others. By addressing their ability to make clearer and more effective real-time decisions, Avanceé is bridging the gap between the future they expect for the present, and their abilities to leverage what’s in their hands.

What happens after this session? That depends on the team. One executive turned a small segment of his team into an innovation-forward department. Meaning, they were to not only use the tasks in the 15 min workshop, but actively seek other ways in which time can be added to the days of those persons they are responsible for. Our conversations since have been about “lessons learned,” other applications/services which integrate into their workflows (or other workflows they weren’t as clear towards in their org), and other ways to see consistent innovative practices as the discipline of operations, not just a single/paradigm shifting event.

Will it work long term? No clue. Almost don’t care. The point is to move forward, and this focus enables many to carve out of their spaces the kind of perspective which is easily transferable to other areas of work and life. If it doesn’t work, it’s not because this was the outside person coming in with something they didn’t know of — this kind of workshop works best when the day-to-day is known and pursued in balance. From there, forward is the individual’s push, and the organization’s to cultivate.

If this comes to your org, how would you respond?

Mental Knots

Mon, 29 Jul 2019 14:55:00 -0400

Reading a piece about totems and tantrums, was reminded of a term heard once before — mental knots. Basically, when people get into a cognitive state where their ability to filter sensory, contextual, and other input streams finds itself overloaded and unable to untangle from itself. This state is pretty easy to see in developing children. And somewhat also able to be discernered from drivers who approach other’s on the roadway as “in their way” or “not moving as they should.” What it amounts to in these contexts is an inability to untether all f the stimuli, ans therefore paralyzes and incites.

Mental knots also show up in organizational contexts. You might have an org in a transition state but unable to figure out how to get from under certain ties. A common scenario has a consultant come into a space, then ask people of various roles, experience levels, etc. their day-to-day activities. The consultant would be there in the capacity to address some process inefficiency. Yet, they find in these conversations such a tethering to their processes that any innovation would be met with a high amount of friction (resistance, tolerance, etc.).

How does one break or loosen these mental knots? Part of an answer is found in acknowledging the truth of the current state and one’s inability to move forward without first releasing some areas of tension. Another comes in looking at one’s abilities versus what was being attempted — knots are spaces where friction to move in a specific direction is unable to overcome the levels of input/output which sit on either side of that tie. An article prescribes walking as a means of releasing some of the bonds which restrict mental steps forward. Walking, physical exercise, mindfulness activities, can help to relieve some of those stressors — when an org takes a walk, this might look like a retrospective, a month of paused projects, or even a service activity.

Recognizing mental knots is simply self awareness of an inhibitor. An org recognizing them and taking steps to alleviate stress is also self awareness — and a market opportunity.

Future Isn’t Far Enough

Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:22:00 -0400

New headlines, not faster ones

Some years ago, attempting to take more control over an online footprint, decided to put an experimental mobile Web server onto a low-end smartphone. It worked really well. Why would someone do that? Or year, or maybe less, before that there was a video by the largest phone manufacture at the time. In that video they talked about, they actually just showed, there was very little text, and I’ll be in that lifestyle where the mobile device transformed itself into what the user need it right at that moment. From that, came a small group — very, very far inside of that company, who took the all powerful tooling which makes web servers tick, and fit it all into a phone. That was the type of future headline I never read before but wanted to be living within immediately.

Before sitting down to compose this, attended a presentation on the future of computing. As the person talked about what he envisioned the future of computing looks like, I wondered where his reference point came from. When he talked about blockchain, he neglected to mention the very public ledger his employer was already building. When he spoke about using voice to design applications, there was no pointing to JAWS or even Apple’s recently demoed voice control feature for iOS13. When he spoke of sensors and cameras which could infer meaning, there was only “it will do this,” not “here’s how we design ethical constraints around the inherent bias of machines primary senses.” There was only the tropes of current and past news — and to be honest, a future already living with two connected rings and a pair of connected glasses on my person now. His future wasn’t far enough.

Attended that talk with the expectation of hearing something, learning something, perhaps even just a perspective not heard before. But the future to some people, is the past to others. For some, the future is faster horses. For others, the future is a protopian canvas compromised of languages long forgotten, scribbled by senses finally given a chance to be exercised. A future which goes further invites the reality of a different floor — not just a “more” floor or an invasive one. It creates a language more than it extends an existing one. Yes, it augments — but it also alleviates and alternates. Going further means that we intentionally disinvite ourselves from owning the narrative — and decide that those with a newer native capacity drive, model, build, regulate, and reproduce.

Some days before, a conversation sparked because of (as was stated) “a clearly different understadning of how to use an iPad.” The person was not just intrigued, but wanted to know why they did not understand-for-use the same technology they had in their hand. As with a current client, this turned into a “what kind of present can Avanceé help you envision with what’s in your hands now?” For them, it was like asking them, “do you want the future right now, or later?” Our sessions start with the future being further than what they’d been working towards but not outside of their hands’ ability to grasp.

There’s something to be said about anchoring the future in what’s understood about the present. But, if you push out a bit further, you just might reveal something about the future which ignites senses beyond simply being stimulated. My goal with Avanceé is to help you push further into that future. Not to give you exactly what you might see from me. But, to offer you a lane, well-within your capacity to build and traverse, so the future you imagine, is also the one you live.

Need help getting to that future? Let Avanceé help you.

Senses of Approaches

Mon, 15 Jul 2019 10:45:00 -0400

Many approaches, just as there are many senses

Having been involved with connected technology since the late 90s, there has been decent evolution in working methods. Where it was once, “only use online research for what can be validated,” now there’s “make sure there are qualitative and quantitative sources for materials.” The funny thing about the latter, is that often the approach still boils down to what can be seen or read. A visual literacy is the preamble to any declarative approach. And yet, we see time and time again, visual artifacts contain only so much information — to arrive at better conclusions, we often have to engage other senses to our approaches.

Engaging other senses sounds as if it could be more involved. And to some degree, that is true. For the beginning parts of our learning days, we are given multi sensory inputs: blocks to touch, colors to recognize, sounds to it knowledge, and more. Over time, our learning environment changes to include more memory retention and recall. If this makes sense, we move to what is understood as higher-order affects. Yet, these higher-order types of mental activities often make us feel so disengaged we run to other tactile, audial, and other senses in order to feel refreshed so that we can reengage with the productive environment.

How do we take the best advantage of using more senses in our environment in order to come to traditional, and often times more innovative outcomes?

Some of this may come out of the way that we evolve what we understand about our natural environment and productivity. For example, one client splits work across several segments of the day. We make a point to have a walking session for one of them, alongside the seated ones, when the weather permits. Those walking sessions tend to expose the deeper problems that we were trying to solve. For another client, we make certain to put exercise and time under the trees as part of the creative method. Yet, outcomes for this client usually require deeper thought. And there is some research which seems to acknowledge that getting under trees, sitting next to still/running water, or smelling different scents as being a catalyst to creative efforts.

This is not an approach that is conductive, or traditional, to the office environment. As a matter fact, it is so different it can look like anarchy to such an environment or culture. However, it is not. Getting in touch with ones other senses enables approaches to creative endeavors which respond heartily to outside of the box perspectives. What’s created then resonates with more than just what is input thru the pupils.

Advocacy Transactions

Mon, 01 Jul 2019 10:24:00 -0400

Not the pioneer, but the ones who follow, who create the roads

Speaking with a few “coffee office mates” about cycling advocacy, there’s something powerful about advocacy which comes to mind. When there’s positivity advocacy, it validates a framing — ethical, capitalist, emotional, etc. — where it is no longer the case if something works. With advocacy in tow, there’s no need for further validation of culture change, it will change. The only question then is how deep that change will be.

Perhaps advocacy could be thought of as the presence of a change agent. When it convinces an area or change, there are those who will adapt, and those who will remove themselves. There’s a moment when a decision needs to be made — a shift where advocates cause positive, negative, or indifferent change. Yet, the change agent isn’t the reason for the change. They are merely the messenger. It is up to the environment to make the decision to follow or ignore. But, when they do, then the power of the advocate is exercised.

In a few engagements, Avanceé is granted access to the strategy and execution of forward-running programs. This is where Avanceé runs best — the statements go something like, “we aren’t ready to do what you are doing. But, we need your guidance to get closer to than where we are now.” Avanceé isn’t the author of the change, just an advocate towards getting there. We work alongside others who wish to be culture/change agents and then arrive at a place where enough information is gathered, or behaviors challenged, where the organization makes a choice to go forward or not.

Similar to cycling advocacy, it isn’t those who are already cycling who create the sustaining change. It is inviting those who are closer to the lived-experience of the region. Those who see other benefits of cycling (financial, health, local business support, etc.) as key to making that cultural change. It’s at that shift where advocacy moves from being a discussion to a transaction. A transaction which invites other discussions, and likely other transactions also. But, the advocate for the initial, won’t necessarily be the advocate for the next. They too will need to change — and become a follower to someone else’s advocacy plan.

Technical Literacy As Currency

Mon, 24 Jun 2019 10:37:00 -0400

Every org is a tech org, every tech is it’s currency

In some engagements, the product is simply to raise the floor of a specific team or role’s technical literacy. This might mean training on a particular platform or application, connecting the dots between existing practices, or carefully appraising incoming personnel’s skill sets. In all cases, one of the arguments made is that no matter the application of the business’ attention, they are a technical organization. Their ability to skillfully use, adapt to, and moderate themselves (individually and collectively) will determine if that literacy is profitable or detrimental.

What amounts to functional literacy is different than even 15-20 years ago. It used to be words per minute was the metric of literacy. Nothing about the quality of the output, nothing about the ability to transform that into various other forms. Just input. Later, many industries evolved past WPM to Microsoft Office proficiency. Not merely being about input, this phrasing also meant the ability to transform and manipulate for specific ends. Unfortunately, it is a very wide request for proficiency (does one need to know mail merge for Word, how to create rules for Outlook, or how to write/edit VBA for macros in Excel). Sure, a good bit of this request for proficiency had to do with understanding how to find and leverage functionality. Yet, it was rarely stated this way. Weirdly enough, this phrasing actually leads to the gaps SaaS products have aimed at marketing.

So, if we agree that these were the leading steps of literacy over the past 30+ years of knowledge-based productivity, what does technical literacy look like now?

does it look like designing and/or building lightweight web applications
does it look like manipulating SaaS CRM, BI, or other data analytic applications
does it look like creating and managing media streams on services like TikToc, Instagram, Pinterest
does it look like selling and branding content thru entities like Etsy, Alibaba, etc.

Or, is it creating something else entirely, which adds the benefit of improving productivity, increasing stakeholder returns, or filling a social need?

Skillfully using, adapting, and moderating technology (individually and collectively) will determine if that literacy is profitable or detrimental. Technical literacy is the floor, and that floor will continue to evolve, just as our base uses of computing evolves.

Connectivity As Wellness

Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:26:00 -0400

When connectivity is wellness

A few conversations recently about connectivity and what it means to be well had sparked something of a different perspective. Namely, what it means to find wellness when you are connected. Sounds like a wrong shift of perspective to some, but we must realize that for many, to be disconnected will mean Essential death. It’s rather on a scale of connectivity where they will figure out what is too much, what isn’t enough, and what it means to be well.

Borrowing from the ideology behind digital immigrants and natives (see: Howard Reinghold), there’s obviously a difference between those who grew up with connectivity as it evolved and those who grew up with different aspects of it more or less normalized. Much like those who grew up with color TV listened to those who grew up with radio talk about the diminishing of imagination, there’s a similar angle to this discussion. However, we won’t settle on the perceived negative connotations, there’s room for that in other digital humanism discussions. We would be better to ask what wellness looks like.

On the other side of those things techie, there’s been plotting what it means to be connected but not overwhelmed. When wearing connected glasses and ears means “an ability to communicate but not be overdone with media connecting to you.” Or, adding a set of ears and finding the other spectrums of hearing not easily heard as we age. Or, adding a watch for wellness is also adding a human introspection of transactions and rest. In a sense, grafting connected devices and services not for the purpose of being consumed with media/attention, but for the purpose of using it to filter the world so that a humane perspective remains.

Wellness starts to sound more like exercising agency over how and what is connected to. It really is “use these attention-seeking, analytics-invasive” services and devices, but doing so under the lens of “let me stay connected to the parts of the world which matters.” Yes, sometimes that means disconnect, but more often, it means to use the settings, filters, and timers also present in order to lower the volume and tone.

Looked at a bike lock this weekend and wondered why an NFC-enabled lock was not (yet?) invented to make it easier to keep a locked bicycle from being taken. A bicycle being used speaks to being human-powered, and close to your surroundings as you travel. However, solutions for securing a bicycle are either to fold and take it with you, or use a fairly thick and heavy lock to secure it. There’s connectivity on a finger which could solve both of these if we thought about it differently. That differently isn’t to be disconnected (analog, or manual)m but to use connectivity in such a way it causes us to cultivate wellness, rather than disconnect because of fears.

If connectivity were also looked at as wellness, what could your humane-enabled perspective also create? What else would it empower? Why not connect to those outcomes instead of what we’ve been doing to date?

Lessons of Incomplete Design

Mon, 10 Jun 2019 10:10:00 -0400

Less “Finished” and More “What Else Is There”

Not every project ends in a beautiful design. Better said, not every project begins with the ideal experience being the thing that is delivered. Often, the idealized design becomes water down, modified, standards approved, or any other myriad of items before it lands into the customer’s hands. As a designer, whether talking about Web or services or hardware, you have to be OK with the idea of your craftsmanship being in an incomplete state. Still, being OK with that state doesn’t mean that there are lessons yet to be learned.

One lesson is that of the design experience was just a guide all along. There is some truth to the statement that often people do not understand what they want until they see it. And what happens here in there is that a design experience is created, however it is eschewed for something else entirely. There was one project we talked about here, that when it released looked almost nothing like the design that was created. The overall experience was actually similar to a few pieces of an early prototype. However, it was the choice of the client to MoveOn from the experience that was designed to experience that was closer aligned to their vision. Can’t be mad at such things, in that case, the product is actually doing well.

In another case, you may have the lesson of the design experience being held to, but the end result not calculated or foreseen. This would seem like an issue which comes from the lack of research, or even the lack of follow through with some of the metrics after the product has been designed. But actually, this is a matter of understanding that design experiences do not always, and should not always, understand every outcome. In fact, it is these unforeseen consequences of a design which should be sought after. This allows you to design a better experience later; and hopefully, there are no mortal injuries as a result of learning said lesson.

The last lesson, this one is for the practitioner specifically, is the lesson of doing too much. It is easily the case for an experience designer to calculate all possible directions for design experience. That ability to have a macro and micro view of the design experience is an asset. And often, notebooks are filled, Post-it notes are laid, and wireframes designed against both the macro and micro view. However, if the design experience is not brought to fruition as designed, the practitioner would feel that the design is incomplete. It is not incomplete; however, their expectations for what the design experience were supposed to contain was incomplete. They went beyond the scope of reality, not the scope of the design. This is an important lesson; it is the humility one.

Now, these are not the only lessons found in designing experiences. There are often several more. However, a recently concluded project brought to mind these lessons in part because there is a re-orientation that happens when you realize that an incomplete design is part of what should happen sometimes. The re-orientation is that design experiences are not the province of the practitioner, it belongs to those who will live with it and it’s consequences. The designer is merely the translator. Some phrases don’t need to be as polished as they hear them in their heads and hearts. All lessons need to be learned — these are just a few for those who create for others.

Unstructured/Structured WWDC19 Keynote Thoughts

Mon, 03 Jun 2019 15:51:00 -0400

Unstructured thoughts on Apple’s 2019 WWDC Keynote

Did not intend to sit down and write this, so am using Siri dictation to do so. Because Voice Control is probably the most important highlight from the WWDC keynote. Well, the most important highlight for those people who may be looking to utilize Apple devices and services for the next 10 to 15 years. For those people, and for what seems to be pointing towards in writing/dictating this right now, the power will be in declarative computing - not simply pushing a mouse, keyboard, or cursor to where you want to go. But using intention as a control mechanism. Gestures are a part of this, but mental acuity is the canvas/pen.

A little bit more about Siri: it seems as if Apple has taken some lessons from Brian Roemmele and is making a more natural interface for potential conversation. Now, he might say that they could’ve gone further and made it purely conversational, and an active listener. But it seems as if they are setting the stage for doing that with watchOS doing noise-loudness detection, a new neural text-to-speech voice, and more. Not fully SiriOS, but the enablements there and with Shortcuts on iOS/iPadOS seems to point there cleanly.

That the iPad is now getting specifically focused iPadOS says a whole lot about the future productivity. Granted, if you’ve been listening to this channel or others for many years, you’re already bought and sold into that vision. The case is now that it’s possible not only for others to jump into that vision, but there is an incentive for developers to build that into their products, and for productivity to change to adapt to that reality. It’s almost like saying, the tablet is grown enough to be the kind of device it needs to be, here is the way you work that out. Three-finger text control gestures toss the “need a mouse” argument out; and PencilKit should finally mean something of a standard-fare in apps which use canvas/drawing surfaces to elevate that input mechanism and the connections it opens.

The new Mac Pro reminds of the Ford F150 from one or two generations ago. It went from a design that looks like a car, but try to take some of the smoother softer aspects of an automotive design and appropriate that to a truck. And while they did not hurt their sales numbers any, they were perceived as being less capable. When looking at the new Mac Pro, not only the design but also the features, the absolutely insane features of the top and models, you can’t help but see a similar cadence. A device like this is really built for professionals, not power users. Will not be surprised to hear those who do YouTube, tech journalism, fawn over the specs for this. But they are not the audience. To those to whom this will be the audience, a redesigned F150 will be exactly what is ordered. And just like Ford, Apple will likely see their perception and marketshare grow by leaps and bounds because of this attention to this specific group.

Swift UI is going to be more important for the health of macOS as it goes forward. Not so much because it gives away for iOS applications to come to macOS, but it allows certain skills and development to be shared from those persons who been developing for many years/decades to those who are just entering the space and find arcane frameworks or software development kits a little more cumbersome than they need to be. That’s not a bad thing, if you want to improve the user experience of some applications, you have to improve the user experience of the developers who are developing those experiences. Demo looked like Swift Playgrounds minus the gaming — kids who play Minecraft are well-positioned to go right into this.

All in all, it has to be something of a breather for those persons who have thought or have seen a decrease in the affluence and ability of Apple to set trends. Clearly, some of the softer bits are harder to see at this juncture (it is a keynote, at the annual developers conference). But if you look beyond the things that were announced, paying attention to the placement of items in the presentation, pain attention to the energy around some of the announcements, you can see that Apple is very much setting themselves up for future where the iPhone has now become like the Mac. Paying attention to the whispers: AirPods, HomePod, CarPlay, Siri — this is Apple next. And that’s not a bad place at all. Even with the economic and cultural headwinds happening right now.

Update: Videos for the keynotes and other sessions are all posted here.

Challenges Not Challenging

Mon, 03 Jun 2019 08:48:00 -0400

Not every challenge is challenging

One of the most difficult concepts to get across in the middle of the sales process is complexity. Or more specifically, how “complexity doesn’t matter.” Given enough information, yet not always enough time to synthesize, anything that is truly complex isn’t. Recognizing complexity is a type of humility. Humility that respects the problem, its audiences, and even the solutions.

It comes across as arrogant to say “oh, that’s easy I get it.“ And that’s because in their framework, in their context, they see an insurmountable problem. But you are outside of that box, you sit in the context not as burdened with the income or the outcome. You are just enough involved to help them see where they could not see before.

Drawing on the outside of the box some refuse to get outside of

Challenges to the way that we move, the way that we behave, the way that we create are a box. And it’s a good box. This box is good for boundaries of protection, boundaries that measure our success, and boundaries that measure the scope or reach of our influence. Those challenges also constrain us. Constraints are a type of freedom, but they are also a limitation. Walking alongside someone who is not inside of your box is an admission you can not overcome the challenge alone. You see their strengths, and opt to graft to your own so that a step forward may happen.

But, they are likely not challenged by your challenges. They have their own challenges. Yours is probably a stimulant to continue past their challenge. Might even be the ink they use to draw on the outside of your box. They don’t’ have your limitations, nor should they. They aren’t supposed to fit in your box…

…they are to empower you to reshape your box.

Flashback: June ‘18

Wed, 29 May 2019 10:49:00 -0400

June of last year (2018) was an interesting month. Felt like there was a shift which needed to be taken with the content here and at the same time, the way summer happens, a lot of activity slows down. So, instead of productivity for others, effort was into setting up the summer/fall output to come.

Musings

Concepts/Past Projects

Notable Reads

Innovation by Enterprise’s Need

Mon, 27 May 2019 12:00:00 -0400

Deftly turning a large ship with a whisper

With some clients, the topic of organizational change comes up very often. This is usually because the work with this client involves taking multiple teams and putting them on the same level as it relates to utilizing a specific software platform. This vantage point offers an ability to see what innovation will look like for an enterprise, but also how hard it is to move in enterprise in a new direction after they have done something for so long.

With several of the teams, they are merely looking at ways of doing their job more efficiently. Shortcuts, automations, and even “features I didn’t know were there” tends to be the context. As such, innovation for these teams looks less like doing something brand new, and more like “how to simplify the most complex happenings.“ For these teams, simply taking a common-to-them analogy and then relating the benefit of the system, offers the best opportunities for what becomes innovative practices.

For a few other teams, there’s a bit more needed. The jobs-to-be-done had been conflicted. Instead of monitoring and elevating meaning, roles are calculating and constraining meaning. Instead of searching datastores quickly, they are locked file cabinets — whose taxonomy is only known by the owner, but often forgotten over time, or triggered by a changing organizational system due to their maturity in the organization. For these persons, enterprise innovation is also simplifying complexity, but first under the guise of “what does your job need for you to execute.”

It is these innovation projects which are the most fun, and the most challenging. Being an external operator means that some of the data day elements of what it means for that enterprise to function are going to always be hidden from view. However, some of those day-to-day elements are pieces that I actually need to be hand is innovative practices are going to have a new footing. In a sense, both of the after mentioned context need to be repotted into new soil. But all of the old cannot be thrown away. The core remains, but the space is envisioned anew (a fun question here: “have you used this tool you already have available to do this”).

Overtime, our role becomes more of a lighthouse. We are not the evangelist, we train the evangelist. We train those people who will be the bell-toll for what it means for that organization to have a better direction. That doesn’t mean a sense of being disconnected from the final outcome. But in our case, we are at governors of the outcome. We are governors of facilitating a path forward. For many enterprises that is simply a whisper in the ear of a highly influential person or group. And then win that whisper is heard just long enough, it becomes an activity that transforms the behavior of the entire organization. But does so in a way they accept, a way they want, and a way they understand better the winds of opportunity are now flowing.

Flashback: May 2018 🔗

Wed, 15 May 2019 12:26:00 -0400

Last week was a flashback to the posts shared last year (April 2018). For this week, it’s a look at what was shared a month later, May ‘18.

Perspectives & Concepts

Notable Reads

Efficiency and Sufficiency

Mon, 13 May 2019 22:20:00 -0400

There’s a pattern to each week here. The long-post to start the week is both summary and launching. Then something in the middle of the week — a concept or a flashback. Then the close of the week where items of the week’s interest are shared (and those following via the site/Microblog see a bit more throughout the weekend). It’s not all that efficient for creating, but it is sufficient for the type of things created.

This navigating of efficiency and sufficiency comes up often in prospective and active projects. Usually, the intention/ask is to make something more efficient — but what’s really being sought is a better association to sufficiency in process, activity, and/or product. In being given a look into what creates outcomes, efficiency seems to be the measuring stick. And to some degree, you can merit some success when removing friction. But, that can’t be the goal. Sufficiency can be the goal, but after a very early point, it’s not so much measured as it’s felt — that is, what’s actually done becomes understood and analyzed well above the scope of what metrics define efficiency.

Can’t take credit for this framing. A recent read at Treehugger opened the topic and made very clear that the aim shouldn’t simply be making a process or series or products efficient. If looking at what people are doing isn’t the metric first, no amount of efficiency actually solves the problem. It actually adds inefficiencies.

But, can an effort like Avanceé subscribe and then ascribe to its clients such a philosophy? Likely, yes. This is the domain not only of an SME, but also of being forward in such a way which respects the people who own the journey. It’s likely a divergence from what you might be used to — but, it wouldn’t be drawing on the outside of the box if it didn’t look at effects/affects like this now would it?

Support Avanceé monthly through Liberapay

Flashback to April 18

Wed, 08 May 2019 09:35:00 -0400

Flashbacks to what talked about on the site a year ago:

Long-Form Thoughts

Notable Links

Tooling Between Communicating & Designing

Mon, 06 May 2019 10:07:00 -0400

Wondering why design tools have been reluctant to evolve

Conversations about design methods and software often bracket the week. If it isn’t another software/service, it’s a design system or a shift in a large/influential company’s motivations which sparks things. And it’s not a bad thing. Design is the language of making something functional and addressable for someone else. When it works well, it should be applauded. When it fails, it should also be elevated as lessons to build from.

Yet, there is this gap in the methods and implementing of design where — if you inhabit the space long enough — you realize that the tools are woefully equipped to transmit the best fidelity of what’s intended. The tools — everything from the napkin and pen to the metrics suites used for assessing usability, frequency, and issues —are developed around the idea that value is being communicated and can retold at each step of the journey. For the most part, this seems to be true, right until a shift happens.

Previously, we ran a post titled The Ethics of UX As A Social/Security Vector. It is the kind of post which can fly under the radar of those in design spaces because it seems to run similar to the other “UX is not doing right by us” theme. Yet, when poking past the questions posed in that piece, one can start to see a tension within the tools and methods designers use to communicate. In a few examples, we can see where it wasn’t the design of the end product where ethics issues lay, but it was in the tooling itself that never asked the designer/developer to consider more than their own intent. So, what happens when the tools evolve to asking these perspectives?

One thought is that the tools we use need to be embedded with ethical and organizational intelligence at a higher place in the ideation process. For example, a tool like Figma is excellent for designers and developers as various bits of communication have been solidified and there just needs to be some work around the edges. Once a design system has been created with Figma, one can make the assumption that the logic needed to build and implement a system has also seen some considerable attention towards its value to various audiences.

Chances are though, more designers have spent time in a scenario more similar to the other image in our frame — Microsoft’s Sketch2Code. S2C is an experimental interface using Microsoft’s lessons in image and intelligence to take whiteboard/napkin sketches and turn them into code. Not interactive, not even mapped against an org’s design system. S2C merely trims the work from those executive thoughts (“can we do it like…”) to elements which can build towards the final product (code, code snippets). However, S2C has a problem, it’s just snippets and a contextualized journey, it isn’t a map which can be built from.

Design tools actually need to bridge what’s explained here between S2C and Figma. And that evolution not happening (fast enough?) with the tools. It is on the whiteboard, and it’s long been the case that some analytical software can check code for logic/rule/regulation after its built. The tooling of enabling the designer to be poked during the fact isn’t there. And maybe it can be for a while — then turned off when those “training wheels” are no longer needed. Or, maybe they aren’t turned off — the ethics which guide why we can’t have this info populate a field because of our company’s stance on this or that probably does mean it evolves.

Much like an mobile operating system learns its owner and begins to recommend items at various points of use, perhaps its time for design tools to get a similar bridge — even if that tool is camera looking at that whiteboard sketch, validating the idea, preparing the code for inclusion to the backlog and branch, but also elevating where it conflicts with the design system and ethics of the attending org/nation. A previous shared concept pointed to this line of thinking. In between communicating and designing, there’s a better behavior to be esteemed. Maybe the evolution of the toolkit could do that. If the tooling evolves at this point, then perhaps the rippled effects of abuse, market gain, culture/language, etc. can be given a more valuable bit of attention.

Support Avanceé monthly through Liberapay

Ethical UX As a Social/Security Vector

Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:46:00 -0400

Bending UX to see other vectors of organizational ethics

A friend and I joked about a photo sent to him. He asked about the name scribbled on the cup. To him and his SE USA context, it came across as a push/play on the term “field negro.” To him, it was a bold play. Now, the name on the cup (“fields”) was in reference to the name of the drink (Strawberry Fields Latte), but it did invite us to take the convo further. What if my name were Fields? Do I even look like someone with that name? And then there was my push: could I change my name in the Starbucks app to “Field Negro?” If so, would they call out the whole name? Would it be shortened?

At that point I put forward this point:

Now wondering if there’s field validation on the names in their app to prevent that

For those involved within web technologies, the idea of field validation is an important one. From in putting the correct information, to validating whether or form is ready to be completed, field validation stands as a very important topic. And I will not even get started in talking about the various ways that web developers, designers, etc. all display whether a field has been successfully validated or not. Suffice to say, that is a seriously challenging subject.

But, I didn’t stop there. I went further with my comment and introspection into field validation:

But… they (Starbucks staff) all went thru sensitivity training right? If UX is the digital modeling of the org’s character, shouldn’t field validation (in their app) be tested for that too

Here lies will where we find a different factor for user experience and then what may have been considered before. If user experience is a successful translation of a company‘s values to the performance of its software/services, it would make sense that something as simple as field validation would also go through the same lessons/outcomes of sensitivity training that those who work with the inputs or outputs have also gone through. If you will, making it digitally clear that every aspect of an organization is showing forth the ethics the company says it espouses.

This quickly goes from being a technical question, is there a field validation for a specific string of characters, to an ethical question, should a company that is allowing a field for identification prohibit certain strings of characters from showing in order to display it sensitivity to a particular group of people or cultural context. That’s not an easy answer; that is an easy answer.

What about a naming field tells you that a company has considered points of view outside of a dominant narrative? There was a story a few years ago about a person in Hawaii whose name was too long to be printed on a drivers license because it contains too many letters. Is it the responsibility of the department of motor vehicles to consider that native names, when written in Latin characters, can be much longer than byte lengths allow? What happens when the byte is too small? Do we change their name to fit our structures? What about password requirement scenarios? Being asked to create a password of a specific minimum number of characters, containing a certain number of symbols, numbers or upper/lower case characters seems to be a sensible framework. But what about when it isn’t? What about when that kind of framework actually limits how the system can be secured, and also enables people to be more easily surveilled?

I will admit, this line of questioning and hypothesizing serves no specific end personally. Professionally however, it opens a door up two types of automation/machine learning in which humans are helped out of their biases, instead of entrenched within them. Going forward, it may not make sense socially to change my name and a Starbucks application for kicks, but it does make sense to explore why some of those changes should not happen. Yelling “fire” in a movie theater doesn’t just test the people sitting in it, but the frameworks supporting those people who came to watch the movie.

What I Do Exactly

Mon, 22 Apr 2019 10:12:00 -0400

A common question grants a canvas to an uncommon answer: ”So what exactly do I/does Avanceé do?”

Heard somewhat often because explaining “experience design” to those who may be around design tangentially is a dice roll. For those who are familiar with design and it’s many permutations, an explanation goes into some specifics and vernacular. For those who don’t have that association, syncing activities and intentions to a space they are familiar with grants the desired clarity. That said, coming via card/site/social media doesn’t always grant the same context. So, consider this a mild explanation of those bits talked about on the About page and those images occasionslly shared

Methods

The primary services include the following::

User Experience and Process Design SME/Consulting

At times, the work encompasses experience design for new or existing products, which often includes looking at the process by which those products will be developed and implemented, not just how those products look and function. These projects are usually not talked about directly because of nondisclosure agreements, or they fall under a slightly different window of access. The results of this work have led to focused product offerings, redefined executive or organizational metrics, redesigned onboarding processes, and/or updates to career development processes.

Digital Life/Digital Humanism Coaching and Strategy

Through some of the more executive and strategy conversations, some work and consultation has also spoken to the prospects of what it means for digital and connected artifacts to enhance or degrade humanity. Digital humanism is a frequent topic as many are looking at what it looks like to be committed with technology, while also being in a state of balance despite it being pervasive in almost every area. To date, work on this topic has been through posts and a few presentations. However, it’s because of this lens that “what exactly do you do” question gets asked the most. The coaching, workshops, and/or presentations noted were requested in order to ignite conversations or foster better strategic planning outcomes.

Pattern/Behavior Research

Pattern behavior research could probably be put under the same category with user experience and process design, but this work is a little deeper than what is traditionally experienced in either of those spaces. Also done with an executive component, pattern behavior research doesn’t just look at what it takes to build a product or service, but it looks at the underlying causes and implications of those products and services. This analysis has resulted in product scoping and market research for specific clients used to assess purchase decisions, improve operational performance, or launch new products.

Experience Strategy & Engineering Complexity
Tymbals Risk Assessment Tool
OneTribe Global/Unitech.is Journey Mapping/Research Analysis for New Product
(Redacted) Market Research for VC Valuation
(Redacted) Product/Process Discovery and Analysis for USA State Gov Agency

Professional/Executive Innovation Coaching

And finally, there’s the piece which happens as a part of some projects/engagements, but doesn’t get as much publicity due to the intensity of the action - coaching. While limited in availability, executive-level supporters of Avanceé have occasionally requested coaching towards dealing with modern technology and practices as their companies evolve.

As a fractional executive, or in-position consultant, research and collaboration establishes known or unknown key meausres, prioritizes issues, and then continual reporting and coaching is used to reshape perspetives and product outputs in order to reach measurable and sensible goals. A proprietary individual and organizaitonal maturity framework is utilzied alongside organizaitonal plans, goals, ans objectives to determine applicable behaviors.

Mobile and Connected Device Subject Matter Expert (SME)

As it relates to mobile, wearables, and other connected devices, some work primarily centers around how to better understand behaviors and content going into those types of devices, what kind of services can be enabled from those devices, and what can be understood from the behaviors and analytics. Sometimes, this means merely looking at data streams and interpretation get next steps or gaps in existing flows. Occasionally, there’s room to concept better approaches which might improve customer experience, user experience, and technical performance. And sometimes, there’s just play — which becomes products themselves.

SmarTrip for Apple Watch Concept
MDOT Transit Ticket App
Library Card Concept
On-Demand Transit App for Disabled Persons
Magic Wand Metrics Concept

Outputs/Deliverables

Outputs from those service-level products include:

Professional/Executive Innovation Coaching

As stated above.

Maps/Models, Wireframes, Interactive Decks, & Workshop Presentations

Thankfully, not everything has to sit behind a conversation. Some of the work that has been produced ends up in maps, models, wireframes, interactive decks, and presentations. Some are able to be public facing, or publicly shared, components, allowing a small glimpse into the finished products, while also not betraying some of the sausage-making which happens before and after these are produced.

Targeted training and/or direct connections to upskill-oriented products

Where possible, limited training is offered for targeted areas. Or, if theres a partner or product which is better to leversge for upskilling people or organizations, those will be recommended. If there is a referral or other type of arrangement with the referral, this would be disclosed at the moment of recommendarion.

This is what Avanceé looks like to date. If there’s a common theme to most of it, it’s simply articulating systems by understanding design in order to re-engineer complexity. Perhaps a complicated way to say “see the forest and the trees while navigating in space,” but that’s how this endeavor has evolved.

If you think Avanceé can be of service to your teams/org, get in touch and let’s move forward in your space.

On Collaborative Products

Mon, 15 Apr 2019 09:51:00 -0400

Collaborative software is validated through collaborative experiences before its individual features

One of the challenges in training software and process is found in the disconnect of knowing the features of an application/service/device, and the context in which it wants to be best used by those being trained. In the past, it was single-user perspective software which opens to a collaborative element (for ex, MS Word to make the Report was by a single author, but “track changes” was meant to make the editing process inclusive of more eyes). Now, the world of productivity software has both that and collaborative-first software. The former can be learned features-first, but the latter, learning features first is the surest way to failure — especially when training/leading in new or infrequent spaces.

So, how does one get up to speed with collaborative products if the training industry still begins from a single-user, features-first perspective? Playtime. Intentional playtime.

Services such as Slack and Microsoft Teams are more or less useless without 3-5 people in the service concurrently. You need to not only have the largely, text-base conversations, but those who will use the app versus the website, those who grab add-ons to make aspects easier, and then a consistent-enough stream of activity. Now, if the latter doesn’t happen, then Slack/Teams becomes a wasteland. Or worse, your content management platform is another network file share, your collaborative word processor is no better than MS Word 97, and everyone wonders less about their competencies, and more about the focus of the technology leaders within the organization.

If something does take, you find new shapes of productivity forming, some of which has no present metric by the org’s existing performance standards. And at the same time, individuals will need to learn quickly how to manage the old way of doing things, and the newer ways the collaborative product has invited into the workspace. Groups start lifting styles of notifications, shortcuts to other features, or repackaging of binders/files/processes into a mastery of something more than what the outputs are — they strike towards a mastery of what it means to work.

A mastery of the features then isn’t even the mastery of the collaborative service — that’s just a mastery of a context within it. There are the secret commands, the bots, the use across other software platforms (for example, using Zapier to push info into and out of Slack based on triggers/commands). At that point, there’s enough mastery in to begin looking at teaching others how the collaborative product has value beyond their workspace. There’s only the words “innovation” here — risk and metrics are only defined by the features of what’s used, and the fear of what it portends.

So then, how can one evaluate the value of collaborative products if it needs others? That’s where your value system has to also update with the shape of the environment. Interdependent metrics such as friction to sharing, invasive/dismissive notifications, quality of communication, and resulting outputs are some measures. Should this be deployed to all groups? Maybe, depends on what value you think it will bring. It needs to be small enough to catch technical issues, and wide enough to get a range of users to identify gaps in what is and isn’t understood.

Expertise needs to be experienced — especially as it relates to the nature of collaborative software. Once it is, then there’s a canvas of possibilities towards its application to others.

Back to Reflect

Mon, 08 Apr 2019 09:30:00 -0400

Some weeks back, started to share notable reads as a daily, rather than weekly supplement. And while this was a good idea from the standpoint of traffic (likely, don’t even look at the stats) and visibility, much about what this space is has gotten lost in the spreading. For example, part of the missing content here has been the long-form posts — item like this one where a few hundred words are spent expressing a piece of a lingering idea.

Those lingering ideas helped to generate the meaning for those reads, as well as served as fuel for concepts and projects as they happened. It also made for a space to continue to practice using the Tap wireless keyboard (of which am greatly out of practice) and other computing accessory items which point forward better than the cases, keyboards, and other tropes which bolster similar sites. Lingering ideas and continual experiments invite a fairer attempt to figure out what worlds sync with now, and which worlds have yet to be explored.

For example, there’s a form and shape to apps which want to help people write apps without writing code. These take the same shape and behavior of asking the person to stencil shapes together with logical statements, usually not looking like the language the person is readily familiar with (for example, Appdoo). Instead of starting with “what do you want to do” and getting embraced to getting there, they are starting with “here’s how this works, can you fit your problem into this.” Not right or wrong, but it’s a shape.

On the other hand, there are fewer experiences where people get a chance to leverage some understood analogies, and then create something programmatic with it. Products like LiquidText get towards this — and Ink and Switch’s Muse goes further still. These kinds of experiments and experiences push forward the concept of taking items which have been engineered as complex, and transform them into accessible spaces which better express the intent of the creators, not simply the abilities of the toolmakers.

Hence, getting back to this pattern — augmented by a simple program’s ability to do some neat things, and pushed forward thru contemplative leanings. To reflect again, and share a piece of what that does forward is what this space is for (in part). And maybe then what’s notable doesn’t just come forward more, but enables a little less complexity to get into the hands of others.

Starting from Convo

Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:29:00 -0400

Building a design ethos, one conversation at a time

In talking with people about Avanceé, one of the questions that comes up from designers, or those with a design background, is “how often do you work with other people versus how often do you work by yourself?“ This is a very valuable question, and it tends to be answered honestly — depends on the project. For many organizations however, the work that happens is actually not doing design artifacts (strategy, research, wireframes, proptotypes, and products), which might require individual or collaborative efforts. The effort/work that is design happens within conversations.

As unique as it might seem, design is not noticed by many people. They notice an aesthetic. They might notice friction when something that is favored turns unfavorable (“this is designed wrong”). They might even notice beauty that is their perspective only, versus beauty that’s a shirt perspective of a group or culture (appreciation and appropriation). Design is communication. It’s a particular mastery of communication. Design should communicate value. However, the value that design communicates is not a mastery of an aesthetic, as a mastery of an investment. Investment means data. Data means analysis. Analysis means communication.

Within some of our conversations, design is something that becomes understood as a way to attract someone to a product. But we often end up turning the conversation into “what is it that you want your product to communicate that’s valuable to someone else?“ When used in this way, the conversation evolves from an investment in some type of beauty, to an investment in some kind of clarity. This clarity often causes those organizations to revisit not only their request for design expertise, but the shape of the organization as a relates to what it is they truly are delivered.

If you look at design as the product that you are offering, you will end up focusing less on the value of what it is that you are communicating and more on the value of the shape of the thing you are communicating. However, if design is part of your very nature. That is, design is the very building block of how you make decisions about how your organization functions, then you communicate something a lot clearer, a lot cleaner, a lot more valuable to your prospective audience: you give them the ability to design their world instead of you designing it for them.

Reflecting on ‘19 So Far

Wed, 13 Mar 2019 10:59:00 -0400

Usually, the middle of the week has been used to share concepts or lingering sketches for current or past projects. Felt like taking things a different direction, reflection of a wider sort.

What’s been pandered about so far this quarter? What are the themes to be found?

Augmented Intelligence

”Deep Thought” As A Productivity Paradigm

Shape of the Next Technologies

The aim for this 2nd year of Avanceé has been to be clearer about who/what this effort is for. It is a soapbox, but a different one than perhaps what’s been shared on social media and blog channels by others (or myself really). It’s deliberately targeting a specific intellectual sect — those who also might be throwing about decisions related to trends and possibilities, but not giving the answers to what to do with them. Those who might have unformed perceptions, and still gathering resources to figure out what those perceptions might mean.

Yet this is also a portfolio of sorts — the work done for clients mirrors the strategy written, the concepts designed, the links shared. There’s a depth and breadth here that’s unlike blogging or email newsletters on purpose. Intentional friction? Perhaps. But, rarely is a way forward cut on an existing road.

Comfortable with where things are? Somewhat. But, not quite at the place where the scratchpad and scribbles are clear enough. Reflections are not always clear, sometimes, you need a bit of time before the ripples dissipate and what’s on the bottom makes itself known.

Deep Thought Paradigm: Workspace

Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:56:00 -0400

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.

Auditing the Peculiar ID/UX Setup

Mon, 04 Mar 2019 11:42:00 -0400

Documenting and adutiing a peculiar (to some) way of working in the interaction design/user experience space

When using an iPad Pro as the primary workstation for experience/interaction design, the suite of tools and the workflow is just a little bit different than many. While a shock to some, its not an impossible endeavor. Though, using popular apps such as Sketch and Figma are out of the question. Replacing those with others, or figuring a way around what seems to be normative becomes part of the process also. At the same time, these applications really set the process for how experience designers translate and communicate their value. Fortunately, experience design is not completely dependent applications used.

It has been sometime since auditing tools and behaviors, and thought to share a piece of that exercise, listening for others’ tools and methods. This was shared with the Hong Kong UX Design Slack Group as part of a discussion on tools and methods.

Ideation

Paper by WeTransfer (formerly FiftyThree)
Evernote (unless client is Microsoft shop, would use OneNote/Whiteboard instead)

Wireframes

Paper (low-fidelity)
MindNode
Adobe Comp CC (higher fidelity)
Paste by WeTransfer (design deck)

Code/Interaction

[Marvel App] (interactions, ability to use Handoff w/developers)
[Textastic] (CSS, JS, etc.)
Paste works often here too
Apple Shortcuts (view source code of webpages, combine images, and a few other items)

Research/Testing

Evernote (lots of narrative space, used alongside Penultimate; audio recording and asset collection; Shortcut integrationfor data collection)
LiquidText (much easier to collect across content types than Evernote, however less collaborative)
Excel (specific UX audit application: maps to Nielsen heuristic and project plan for stakeholder & project management buy-in)

You might have noticed a bit of simplicity with the listing here. Part of that comes from how a previous definition of UX (presentation deck) guides practices. This definition of user experience has become a bridge towards other audiences in defining expectations and deliverables. And as such, much of the way working on an iPad has evolved through this definition.

You might have also noticed a few tools previously featured on other posts mentioned here. Adobe Comp CC and Paper are mainstays to the creative process — snippets of screens show often in the Wednesday Concepts. Paste has endeared many to feeling similar to PowerPoint, but adding the positives of collaboration like Slack and others. Paper and LiquidText are probably the least collaborative of the tools mentioned. This is not a mistake, deep thought as a paradigm for work needs just as much mention as collaborative and coding tools.

Depending on the needs, the deliverable(s) takes several shapes. Paste decks, Apple Shortcuts, Google Forms, and reports have been the outputs of most of these activities. The shaping into those artifacts takes on the same routes. This is on purpose, consistency creates an avenue for efficiency. And in utilizing this specific tool and workflow, experience design becomes something closer to the initial thought than with other hardware.

Let’s stop there for now. So let’s hear it from any of you if you are using tablets, mobiles, or anything that isn’t a conventional Windows/macOS laptop as part of your ID/UX toolkit. Am always game for learning/playing with something new.

Status As A Serivce by @eugenewei

Sun, 03 Mar 2019 00:51:00 -0400

Status As A Serivce by @eugenewei

Probably a good thesis for @microdotblog as well as a note of caution and hope for success

Unshapen and Focused

Mon, 25 Feb 2019 13:25:00 -0400

Being thrust back to the future of unshapen mobiles and their implications

Spent a nice day recently, conversing with other information/experience design professionals during World IA Day. Some of the conversations sprung towards either the tools we use, or how hard it is to focus product and process because of the amount of options which seem to be at our fingertips. Literal fingertips in this case — was using Pencil and Tap to take notes. The introduction of newer forms of input or expression seems to have hit something of a fever pitch over the week. Besides the context of conferences currently happening, there’s also a shift underfoot to question and explore what felt like certainties. This has led to a number of unshapen forms, and perhaps some more focus towards what people want for their tools to do.

Microsoft at MWC Barcelona: Introducing Microsoft HoloLens 2 - The Official Microsoft Blog

Why would one use a computer that fits on their head instead of sitting in front of a terminal? Why do they learn new gestural commands, versus leveraging the years of keyboard, mice, and/or touch? What’s really “better” if this is causing so much transformation? And yet, these questions are so focused they miss the unshapen opportunity. Microsoft postures HoloLens 2 as a computer for people who aren’t in front of computers but need to leverage computing to do their job (start at 4:40). This is focused in an unshapen context. But allows for a focus to something which can enable others.

Then there are those folded screens showing up on the newly announced Samsung and Huawei mobiles. Is there a reason for these? Can these technologies (multiple batteries stitched together with software, folded screens, windowed interfaces, etc.) answer something about computing that’s considered a compromise with tablets or large phones? Or, is the transforming phone the bridge to the wearable and voice-augmented device as the telephony — the foldable screen being an adaptable input interface accessory? Certainly, if not looking at these as addressing a compromise we can start to have these perspectives. But what others? What about mobile and/or tablets is unshapen and could use some attempt at focus?

Get to Know the Galaxy Fold - Samsung

Huawei Mate X: a closer look at MWC 2019 - Engadget

Perhaps the apprehension with these kinds of devices are because they do expose the potential of life outside of assumed norms. For much about technologies, processes, and behaviors, we forget that there was a time when these were new also. They challenged norms and it was difficult to see the things yet imagined.

To be unshapen doesn’t mean to be unfocused. And, as we are seeing with these and other announcements at MWC, to what we notice in regional and global policy might have had focus for one stage of life, pen towards describing what comes next.

Simply Perspective

Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:14:00 -0400

Using perspective of the future to communicate a simply, accessible present

Living in a space where there’s some freedom towards experimentation and its resulting analysis often leads to incredibly simple insights. However, getting to that point is not so much a matter of iteration, or even research, sometimes, it is a matter of just having a different perspective than others who might be able to utilize those fruits in a more applicable manner.

About a month ago, published a piece talking about the potential implications of using the Tap wireless keyboard and have been steadily living on the changed diet of this keyboard, Siri dictation, and the on-screen keyboard. I might not be until these Monday, long-form pieces that sitting at a conventional keyboard is actually noticed. Something about using a tablet doesn’t feel like a tablet when using a conventional keyboard (the Apple Smart Keyboard or any 3rd party variants). The feeling that a tablet is a different kind of computer is felt best in the perspective of using the glass as the changeable canvas that it is — letting it morph into whatever needs to be next. The behavior of typing, while a normative behavior, sees a different level of thinking when its removed completely from the hardware.

A friend asks some days back about what new tools might be on deck, and there’s the Tap keyboard which comes into the conversation. Having not realized that it was not seen by this person, there meant a demo. The resulting expression, the shift of their facial expression, showed that something beyond the normal was being shown. And yet it was not so detached from reality to be something “only seen in movies.”

Perhaps, this is what is better understood by those who design new technologies which appear in movies, but do not have an analogy to what’s happening right now. Inventing the future — or rather, inventing another reality— is not looking at things as they are, but by taking aspects of the known then stretching them towards more applicable conclusions. The rubber band of taking those far-out perspectives, and making them accessible to an audience who isn’t there, is a type of genius. There’s an art to making it clear. But, probably a better one to just stretching backwards after going forward.

A few prospective projects have Avanceé looking at the future and using that viewpoint to find simpler, clearer, and more appropriate means of addressing today’s problems. Inside of this space, it is sometimes difficult to see that the future isn’t right now. And yet, by simplifying the end point to something which can be grabbed, perhaps the future is really just a means to shifting our perspective towards using more of what we’ve always had.

Human Factors of Efficiency

Mon, 11 Feb 2019 10:24:00 -0400

Perspectives of humane factors for defining efficiency

Long before Avanceé was a clear concept, work was a series of support and design efforts looking at problems spaces from a perspective beyond the stated problem. Solutions invented had the effect of snowballing towards more. Some of those efforts kept going long after invention and implementation. Such was the expanse of a past effort that only recently is being retired.

I’ve evolved in these responsibilities towards documenting and creating paperless forms with associated workflows to trim the administrative times allotted towards some member-facing and internal quality behaviors. Over 2 dozen of these forms/workflows have been developed, with a quarter of them in a live or beta state, and two having reached a level of association adaptation and use…

— From Workstations to Working Beyond Stations

For any innovation to be sustained, it’s got to to also be more than the parts which make it up. As Token spoke about on their recent blog post, a philosophy putting a system over the individual parts creates opportunities where other efforts may not target clearly targeting. With that effort with a regional YMCA, the target was to improve a system of behaviors, not merely to add digitalization into existing experiences. This had the effect of not only reshaping a core process, but also elevating the impact of humane factors which had been hidden by flaccid expectations.

Human factors of efficiency sounds difficult to explain, but not so through many lenses. Within the economic conversation, the concept of a universal basic income is an attempt to answer the factors related to quality of life and its ratio to available work. The concept of multi-modal transportation seeks to define pedestrian transport and access as the purpose of transport infrastructure, not as the consequence of it. These and several other “topics of the day” seem to define and merit out the value of factoring humane input and consequences to what seems to be determinant states. Human factors are found as not a layer here, but the very floor by which understanding is gained and wisdom enables the best of human ability.

Do you understand the human factors at the floor of the operational and transactional practices of your organization? Or rather, have those factors been diminished in view for others? Has working from home turned from environmental sensibilities to extending the project cycle? Has collaboration gone from catalyst to doctrine? Humane factors can fall in importance quickly if not cultivated. And can even be abused, only showing later in unseen conditions. However, any solution that plans on maintaining or improving human ability has two edits very core factor what are the humane possibilities. Referring again to the previously linked piece:

…not only why revisiting the posture of the Branch Service Manager needs to change in the perspective of technology tools — but why such a change is a service-first attitude which positions branches and their members for the best possible results in a world that’s going to be significantly different going forward…

Suffice to say, the words written over 2 1/2 years ago here are holding through now. However, we can now say what different is. Technological change means focusing on what it matters to be human. We don’t always utilize a clear definition of productivity. But, we do know that if we remove human factors from the equation, the end results become only of metric of what could have been.

Previous Articles:

Tuning the CIO

Mon, 04 Feb 2019 12:22:00 -0400

Tuning aspects of the CIO position into temporary, effective leadership

Looking back at a recent project, part of the analysis of the work came in the form of looking at what Avanceé has accomplish to date. In some respects, the strategy and organizational work can be boiled down to the activities of an information office. CIO definition via Wikipedia:

“The Chief Information Officer of an organization is responsible for a number of roles. First and most importantly, the CIO must fulfill the role of business leader. As a CIO must make executive decisions regarding things such as the purchase of IT equipment from suppliers or the creation of new systems, they are therefore responsible for leading and directing the workforce of their specific organization. In addition, the CIO is ‘required to have strong organizational skills’. This is particularly relevant for a Chief Information Officer of an organization who must balance roles in order to gain a competitive advantage and keep the best interests of the organization’s employees. CIOs also have the responsibility of recruiting, so it is important that they take on the best employees to complete the jobs the company needs fulfilling. In addition, CIOs are directly required to map out both the ICT strategy and ICT policy of an organization.”

Running away from the personnel aspects for a piece of the discussion, the challenge many organizations have simply boils down to “how does the best behaviors and tools of computer/connected technology enable my business to meet or exceed our current operations?” Notthing about this is a difficult statement, but it is one where those who might be better attached to sales or even product roles might fail to accurately contemplate. Suffice to say, being a sign of a compentience in information architectures has its advantages, it also shows a larger gap before the marketplace.

In the article Classroom Management: Simon Sinek, ClassDojo, and the Nostalgia Industry, there’s an acute understanding being brought forward: we cannot prepare groups for a world in where transactions and reputations are built in a seperate universe than the one in which tradition has called comfortable. If you will, running away from the most dangerous affects of connectivity has the indirect effect of also unaccounting for specifc skills utilized by those who do/will run the companies of the incoming information economy.

In the absence of such skills, Avanceé almost fits perfectly. Tuned to an educational gap —perhaps more a skills gap? Articulating systems seems to be the table stakes for any grappling with informational streams. Yes, there’s indeed something of an overload of information, yet the opportunity isn’t in reverting backwards but handing with a distinct acumen the information which is present. In our case that ends up also being the inevitability of designing better experiences or even re-engineering the structures to interpret experiences and their resulting systems. Which is more or less retuning the CIO into less of an office, and more of an opportunity.

Simplicity Then Forward

Mon, 28 Jan 2019 12:00:00 -0400

Staring with simplifying as identifying how forward

In the past weeks, Avanceé has had conversations with companies having trouble identifying how to take their next steps. This isn’t an unfamiliar track when prospects of growth are more certain, or market forces push companies to pay attention to disruptive behaviors which ripple into their context. Still, identifying what to do, versus just knowing something has to be done is the challenge. For those who had reached out to Avanceé, the onus was simple: ingest as much as possible about the stressors, and then listen for what isn’t being taken in.

Using the right kinds of listening methods and tools makes this process easier for Avanceé, but might be a challenge for others wishing to employ similar methods. Nevertheless, the best tool on any strategist’s belt is the ability to listen. For many clients, listening is augmented with sketchnotes and diagramming. While listening, allowing the finger and pen to make connections which might trigger a greater memory later leverages both the conscious and subconscious mind. By no means are humans spiders, but we are likely a lot closer than it appears.

During ingestion there is also digestion (processing). In our case, we are ignoring the bigger elements, listening for repeated and sub-textual items. It is in this layer “under the ice” where some gaps are made a bit more apparent. It is also to this layer were questions are lobbied. Those questions aim to pull those subterranean items to the surface, vetting if they are key to stressors, or merely symptoms of another artifact. These questions are also bolstered with search-and-cross references amongst known data and contexts. Perhaps a bit biased to look for an analogy when listening to specifics, but it helps to shape processing. By the end of this process, an number of clear focuses have been noted, with a few have been weighted accordingly. In our methodology, this gets simplified further to three questions. And from those three questions, a core goal is established.

If this sounds like “simplifying the problem” then you are tracking. Much about what it means to take a step forward means to decompose the problem into structures which facilitate faster and more accurate responses. Simplicity doesn’t necessarily mean ease — some of the most simple solutions have complex underpinnings. Simplicity reduces the friction the problem statement identified. When it does so beautifully, positive forward movement can occur. With positive forward moments, companies aren’t only able to address disruptions, but become one to those who aren’t able to take the heat of newly increased friction.

Can Avanceé help you simplify a complex or frictional item? Get in touch and lets explore the ways forward for you.

Bonus Notes from 18 Jan

Wed, 23 Jan 2019 10:47:00 -0400

Shortcuts and the Challenge of Flow

Mon, 14 Jan 2019 11:52:00 -0400

The use of Apple Shortcuts and an ability to maintain “flow states” of productivity on iOS

When talking about productivity, much of the discussion around using systems outside of Windows and macOS die on the hill of “flow.” Meaning, there are alternate apps or behaviors which need to be learned in order to do the same things. Instead of using existing methods to maintain/improve the workspace, alternative tools and methods create friction within the experience — they break the perceived and actual flow states people wish to not leave when being productive.

A specific challenge for those who might have moved to primarly using the iPad for a productivity computing device lies in the other design decisions which are contrary to what’s been learned: touch and stylus instead of mouse; keyboards as attachments instead of default, making items such as shortcuts, GUI elements, etc. bend towards a different frame. Even decisions such as type of screen (the ProMotion display in the Pro models versus the regular iPad), ignites tradeoffs in expectations. No challenge is insurmountable and it bears some record that some of these challenges are being answered in diverse ways because of the nature of the iPad — some solutions are about being creative before being logical.

The Apple Shortcuts application can be used to addresss some of these challenges, and in this post, a few items used here will be highlighted. Where possible, the descriptions will also include a link to download (and customize).

See Apple: What’s A Shortcut

Avanceé Reads

This is an expansion of a web clipper. Upon finding a notable link, whether on social media or a website, it is placed into an Evernote library, and an additional action to another application is able to be initiated without using the share sheet. A hopeful evolution for the shortcut would be to create a draft document, or append a draft document, which will be used here for the weekly links share.

Avanceé Reads Shortcut

Accident

Accident is actually designed for use when mobile, specifically with an Apple Watch. This is a shortcut which grabs the current location and then perhaps a text message to specific recipients. There’s a note on the text message that it is an automated message, but that person need to be conscious in order for it to be sent.

Accident Shortcut

Log Time

Log Time is a multifaceted time tracking shortcut. In this specific implementation, it takes the input of current location, hours worked, and client to create a time log. Based on the client, additional questions are asked in regards to scope of work. Furthermore, some clients have an additional series of actions which makes a copy of the time log to an external resources such as Google Sheets, Trello, and more. For notification purposes, this also has a calculator which shows the earnings during that time block.

Mentoring Tracker

The Mentoring Tracker shortcut is used to track progress of volunteer activities. This one was specifically designed for work with Higher Achievement Baltimore. Once initiate it, the shortcut ask for the participants who were engaged, the work which was or was not completed, and then sends an email to the administrators of the program with a summary of the work that have been completed during the mentoring session. An extension of the shortcut saves the resulting summary into Evernote, a continually appended document.

~~An expanded version of this Shortcut is being developed which would cover additional mentoring activities beyond the original volunteer group.~~

Now available: Mentor Tracker v2

Significant Other ETA

The shortcut is designed as a response to a significant other when on the way to meeting them. It grabs the current location and then calculates the time it will take to get to the destiination. After the calculation, it preps a text message to the recipient with the ETA and current location. The text messages not sent automatically. A few derivatives have been made according to specific people, as well as calendar entries.

Calendar Entry ETA

There are also a few unfinished concepts:

Create RFP for Prospective Work
~~Mentoring Tracker v2.0~~
Impact Hub Tour Card
Morning Routine
Update Whiteboard

As you can see, there are definitely challenges for utilizing an iPad (or iPhone) as a primary computer. Yet, many of the solutions aren’t in the purview of doing what was done previously with Windows/macOS. The “job to be done” begins at “what’s actually needed to be done at the end” and from there, Shortcuts can often get one there. Some items tend to take a bit more imagination and scripting than what you might be used to, but there’s nothing insurmountable.

For a look at some other’s who have published shortcuts, check out the following sites/lists:

Customizing Shortcuts via iMore
Ask the ‘Shortcuts’ Experts via iMore
Several Shortcuts videos via @MatthewCassinelli on YouTube
MacStories’ Automation Section — amazing overview in their iOS 12 Review
Reddit Shortcuts Community
Routine Hub Shortcuts Gallery

Scribbling Notes Towards Refined Abilities

Mon, 07 Jan 2019 11:20:00 -0400

Could going about sharing digitally using an analog analogy unveil the better AI

There’s something “rough” about the way online systems have asked for us to modify behaviors so that we can script and share content. For the most part, the analogy begins and ends in a list. Feeling like Avanceé could push things differently, there’s an experiment underway to add a bit of “scribbling” to the notion of the shared links. In the midst of such an experiment, there’s a revelation of what might be a better response to some of the noise given to what intelligence does in a computational age.

A popular application for iPads called LiquidText — unveiled more than a year ago — took the analogy of a hyperlinked notebook and pushed it to an interesting interpretation. Still working alongside the idea of a list, the experience was designed around pulling snippets from documents, images, and web pages within that list, and placing them alongside handwritten notes. The user could highlight, or copy excerpts, and then connect those snippets with lines and links. The resulting “document” mimics the mind of the person putting it together, not (necessarly) the whims of those who designed document formats or rights management. While not the only application which pushes forward such an analogy, it has become a key part of other research work and makes sense to push in a wider format for Avanceé.

In his 2019 New Year’s essay, George Dyson sets the plate neatly for such experimentation:

Digital computing, intolerant of error or ambiguity, depends upon precise definitions and error correction at every step. Analog computing not only tolerates errors and ambiguities, but thrives on them. Digital computers, in a technical sense, are analog computers, so hardened against noise that they have lost their immunity to it. Analog computers embrace noise; a real-world neural network needing a certain level of noise to work.

Where it gets interesting is that working in LiquidText requires a different (honorable?) association to the concepts of consumption, time, contemplation, and outcomes. Much like a notebook, there must be time spent collecting content and then arranging it. But, its not final when it gets there. In the early phases of this experiment, am already noticing how often some snippets or notes find their way moved around the canvas, pointing to other pieces, and even in some cases censored (this is done to be shared publicly). This is an intensive, analog process — and yet it is enabled by wrangling mature pieces of digital behaviors. This is the DJ remixing 45s, but creating a sound and genre which couldn’t be made with 45s alone. It needs and thrives on the abilities of the DJ.

What has such a workflow done? Already, there’s a slower processing of information — yet there’s not slower consumption of it. There’s a roughness to getting information into LiquidText — so much so there’s a workflow being developed (using Apple’s Shortcuts app) which will smooth the trip from finding a note to getting it into the appropriate LiquidText (and maybe even Micro.Blog) formats. The Apple Pencil becomes more of the constant friend — and the keyboard gets pushed aside for a smaller one (in this case, the Tap. The shift feels as if there are aspects of analog behaviors being reinvested into the workflow. And in doing so, the connections between disparate pieces of information aren’t simply being pulled together, they are being mixed and remixed in the same ways they are happening neurologically, not programmatically.

Found a quote befitting a few streams of thought like this late in 2018:

Special knowledge can be a terrible disadvantage if it leads you too far along a path you cannot explain anymore” — Brian Herbert

Chances are, an experiment like this refines what augmented intelligence could mean; the kind of field which can be planted when analog behaviors are given place to grow natively alongside digital tools.

Experimenting with taking LiquidText notes of the weekly links has revealed branches of creativity, thought, and process previously hidden to the digital-infused, links collection process. There’s something more happening than simply collecting. However, it might be the case that a former idea should become the better focus of some of these kinds of activities. There’s something being appended to the way Intelligence has been cultivated. A stream befitting a smoother course down this informational river.

Avanceé in 2018: Articulating Focus

Mon, 31 Dec 2018 10:38:00 -0400

2018 was the first year for Avanceé. With new initiatives, there is usually a specific product or problem statement springboarding an audience to figure out why they need what’s being offered. That clarity of focus has been the purpose of the first year with Avanceé. This venture takes a complex paradigm (an intersection of experience design, automation/augmented intelligence/artificial intelligence, & the future of work/industries), and packages it so that individuals, teams, and companies can take the best advantage of the technologies, processes, and experiences which will define them going forward.

Focus for Avanceé in 2018 has meant articulating systems, designing experiences, and engineering complexity. These three terms have expressed what Avanceé brings to any engagement. Therefore, it’s best to use these terms to describe the work which has taken place in 2018.

Articulating Systems

Avanceé spent a good bit of time linking/talking about tools and productivity. Grouping under the topic “Articulating Systems,” this means taking some understood analogies, and peeling the veil from them to explore what’s happening at a simpler level, an automated/AI level, or what might be the perspective of those who are just coming into the understanding that the systems and tools have shifted right under them.

Designing Experiences

Talking about systems is one phase of understanding product and strategy. Another is going about the process of designing what those experiences do, or designing a means to understand the outcomes of various experiential journeys. Under the topic “Designing Experiences,” Avanceé explored not only what it means to live in a world defined by experiences, but also what goes into creating those worlds and making sense of the perspectives which come from those who experience them.

Engineering Complexity

Lastly, no good initiative is worth anything until the rubber meets the road — that is, what are the products and results. Avanceé shared both current and past projects from its workspace. Leveraging tools such as WeTransfer’s Paper and Paste, Marvel App, Adobe’s Comp CC, MindNode, and others to express how it “Engineers Complexity.”

Truth be told, there’s actually been a lot more produced than what’s represented here. This means that there’s a lot of more to be clarified, experimented upon, and created into a sustainable exploration of what it means to take individuals, teams, and organizations forward. Avanceé has been able to articulate what experience design means to the current shape of work; and for the initial clients, used methods leveraging augmented intelligence and experience design to engineer complexity out of their processes.

Sharing Insights

One thing which has gracefully come from much of the work done this year has been a chance to share some insights. Two presentations specifically:

Brigadoon Annapolis (Transcript: Part 1, [Part 2](http://www.avancee.agency/2018/10/02/brigadoon-annapolis-transcript.html0, Part 3, Part 4, Pics)
Baltimore UX Group: Beyond the Portfolio

Platform Technologies

Many thanks to @Manton and the Micro.Blog team for such an excellent platform to share these projects and insights. Thanks also to Earn/Coinbase for enabling a means to leverage the blockchain for more than simply tracking transactions (see why Avanceé uses Earn for a contact form). Apple Shortcuts has been a constant companion towards automating much of the workflow from posting to task administration (Zapier, IFTTT, and Microsoft Flow along with these). These and other technologies will continue to be utilized in order to practice what’s being preached, and enhance what’s being done.

One Step Then Another

Creating a focus for Avanceé in 2018 has meant articulating systems, designing experiences, and engineering complexity. This is one stop on a new road forward. Join Avanceé in 2019 in building what happens when we step outside of the box, and into the opportunities the next decade opens for us all.

Links for 21 Dec

Fri, 21 Dec 2018 11:53:00 -0400

The way this part of the season has developed, one is supposed to take inventory of the year, admonish themselves for making it this far (in one piece), and reflect forward to the mostly positive outlook for the upcoming year. Rarely do we continue as if the year isn’t ending. It is only a solstice after all — a standing of the sun for just a moment. Perhaps the point of pausing all along wasn’t to reflect, but to give other pieces of our world a chance to find their rest and reset their rhythms. For the last week, these reads have been Avanceé’s solstice:

A Short Story About Choice in an Age of Wearables via The Atlantic
The NFL’s Analytics Revolution Has Arrived via The Ringer
[How Robots and Drones Will Change Retail Forever via Wall Street Journal](How Robots and Drones Will Change Retail Forever - WSJ)
California dealers ask Volvo to stop Care by Volvo subscription service via Roadshow
Why China’s Electric-Car Industry is Leaving Detroit, Japan, and Germany in the Dust by MIT Technology Review

And a few from us:

In regards to the attached image: There’s the potential of sponsoring a masterclass based around The Field Study Handbook by Studio D in the DC Metro area in the late Spring. If you’d like to be notified about this, drop a line here, on Micro.Blog, or Twitter.

This could be the last shared links of ‘18. Not sure. In any case, if you’ve come along for the ride at any point during Avanceé Year One, thank you 🙏🏾

A blessed and merry Christmas to you, your families, and companies.

Deep Thought As A UI Paradigm

Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:48:00 -0400

Avanceé has elevated many discussions and topics throughout this first year. Much of this is overflow from projects, but, occasionally, there’s some expanding on ideas which are expressed in other channels. The latest of these has been a consideration about a user interface (UI) and overall experience pattern for the type of work described as “deep thought.” We’ll start from the tweet which questioned, the response which proposed one, and how we can perhaps develop on that idea of what a UI looks like from there.

We still haven’t quite figured out the right UI paradigms for deep work… But for close collaboration on a deadline, technology is now great. AirDrop, Slack, WhatsApp, Google Drive, Google Docs, Zoom. Things are so much better than they were a decade ago.

Deep Thought should be put into a different bucket than collaborative or even task-based work as its definition, even if its results end up contributing to those and other types of productivity/computational moments. The issue — well identified by Stripe’s CEO — is that the shift of perspective and intention of deep work is harder to pin down as much of what’s monetized about work is transactional. Deep work is transactional primarly 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.)

The approach proposed here isn’t an answer, but does start to bend the definition of deep work away from the (better understood) characteristics associated with collaborative and transactional software. The interfaces for collaborative software is established probably in looking at what’s being done:

multiple persons as audience
decrease in time/space between those persons
breakdown of siloed files/conversations into threads
leveraging bandwidth connectivity in multiple modes (AJAX, high/low-fidelity, stream/asynchronous, etc.)

Deep work, our proposal for looking at it, runs counter to these. The goal isn’t to make anything tenable to another audience, for the entirety of the opportunity is found in focus and immersion. This doesn’t mean that it would not eventually be shared, but that sharing or co-working is a “broken” model for this kind of UI paradigm to aspire towards.

The analogy of Etch-A-Sketch controls versus Photoshop (PS) plants into the frame of mind what is and isn’t possible. In PS, one can control the interface using mice, keyboards, and pens; then navigate the interface using points, clicks, double-clicks, mouse-overs, keyboard shortcuts, gestures, programmable scripts (macros), and speech. This endows the creator with a myriad of possibilities; and also forces them to ignore what they will not use in order to be totally immersed within the project. On the other hand, the Etch-A-Sketch proposes two dial controls, and a vigorous, physical control to reset the canvas. It is simple, and at the same time powerful. Mastery of the horizontal and vertical dials isn’t so much the aim, as much as it becomes a goal of focusing on what it can do best. For a deep thought UI, this is more important than being able to do anything.

Lastly, what are the behaviors promoted within an application or service which espouses deep thought principles? It might be framed best by two phrases: “liberty inside the frame” and “structured export outside of it.” Maybe better stated with the question many persons who purchase Field Notes tend to answer: “what am I going to do with these when they are filled? Nothing. Everything.” Inside of a Field Notes notebook, one draws, writes, scribbles, rips, etc. Anything the paper and writing instrument allow, these are executed within the frame, and nothing more is expected of it. At the same time, if it needs to go elsewhere, rip or photograph and go… it doesn’t change the fidelity of thought which went into it, but it does enable another audience to gain a piece of what had been “internal only.”

Understandably, this doesn’t answer the original premise of what a deep thought UI paradigm would look like. And its not the only approach taken towards answering what that would look like (Basecamp’s It Doesn’t Have to Be Crazy At Work as another take). However, it does invite the question of what making space for contemplation and deep though could look like if the tools appropriated the lessons from this behavior also. And if it took onto those lessons, would not only software change, but would the industries crafted by that software also become more introspective to their outcomes?

We tend to think so…

…over the coming year, we plan on clarifying what that would look like from our end; passing the lessons here to what might be better served outside of a thought.

Resource: The Field Study Handbook

Wed, 12 Dec 2018 12:19:00 -0400

Purchase The Field Study Handbook at Studio D

Experimental World Design

Mon, 10 Dec 2018 12:30:00 -0400

There are those who invent the future before its imagined… that happens here too

In one of the reads highlighted last week, there was the mention of the space and practice of experimental world design. This could also be called prototype engineering or futures concepting. It amounts to drawing on various disciplines in order to guide decision making processes for what could be more clearly seen with something “touchable” in the midst. This is beyond simply doing a demo, this is a space of world building where the impacts are assumed during the design (creative) process, but the door is wide open to be surprised by the results. When done well, experimental world design enables better (ethical?) decision making. When pushed into spaces with too positive or too negative a bent, the resulting tropes might guide decisions and their outcomes for much longer than the concept might have predicted.

When we designed the SmartTrip Apple Watch Concept, there was some of that experimental world building happening. No, not to the level of Monika Bielskyte’s Ghost in the Shell research work, but also not that far away either. In order to design an application which could relate to several contexts by which public and shared transportation would be utilized, there needed sufficient research to place the activities and the resulting issues which would land with making that concept feasible. As with many researchers, there was a lot of “throwaway” work, however, there was also a good bit of work which wasn’t thrown away, but made its way into apparently simple functioning features within the application.

We find this kind of activity not limited to technical concepts; it is actually part of the formation of a person throughout childhood. Children who are able to take boxes, wrapping paper, and other “raw” materials of the home and then create worlds are exercising this same muscle. Some of these children are able to go future and isolate specific components of those worlds, growing that focus into a hobby which might carry them for a few years of childhood, or for the rest of their lives. One could argue, experimental world design by adults is a continuation of such practices (with monetary and political compensation attached).

As spoken within that article, one cannot do experimental world design and think others will be as invested within that world as its authors. Yes, empathy will be gained by audiences when they revel in the worlds which are created. However, every audience will go into that world with a story framed around their own biases and expectations. Done successfully, a world designed in these moments will fade into the background, and a larger narrative will rise to the surface. This doesn’t mean the world doesn’t matter — only that there’s something greater that the world is promoting. Much like the child who builds their world in order to gain the attention and presence of a parent/influential older person. If we concentarate on those worlds which are created, we might learn a bit more not just about ourselves, but also about what others want to find invested within their own stories.

Under Your Nose

Mon, 03 Dec 2018 14:51:00 -0400

Chances are you don’t need a design strategy to fix your product/market fit. The solution to your woes is likely under your nose already.

Within a few streams of technology and communication, there is a path of resistance when it comes to figuring out what might be the solution to fixing a product for greater market acceptance. The waves within those streams are rocks which might challenge the way in which water travels. Water, in this case meaning the way in which markets or organizational culture might flow. More often than not, what we might recognize about that issue is not what we have stated, but what was said in the context.

How then do we listen for what the context of an item might be saying? A few lenses can be gleaned from a few concurrent conversations:

X : Why is everything about mapping with you? Me : I guess I just like to look before leaping, shooting a rifle, committing troops to a battlefield etc. I do find that looking at an environment before making a decision is quite useful whether driving a car or government policy.

That comes from a Twitter thread by Simon Wardley. There’s much to this, but simply speaking, he talks about dealing with technical debit from the perspective of using a map versus putting each of the issues and opportunities into containers. There’s more to the thread; but, that requires navigating the stated content and the context.

Meanwhile, Farnam Street has a lengthy admonition towards battling (or aligning oneself with) entropy:

…Uncontrolled disorder increases over time. Energy disperses and systems dissolve into chaos. The more disordered something is, the more entropic we consider it. In short, we can define entropy as a measure of the disorder of the universe, on both a macro and a microscopic level. The Greek root of the word translates to “a turning towards transformation” — with that transformation being chaos. As you read this article, entropy is all around you. Cells within your body are dying and degrading, an employee or coworker is making a mistake, the floor is getting dusty, and the heat from your coffee is spreading out. Zoom out a little, and businesses are failing, crimes and revolutions are occurring, and relationships are ending. Zoom out a lot further and we see the entire universe marching towards a collapse…

These kinds of perspectives land simply in the question: “what are you offering?” As a venture, Avanceé is offering its clients efficiency and simplicity. Their processes, and the tools which are used within those processes, can be simplified, magnified, and some level of order/disorder tolerated so that there’s more clarity towards the defining goal. We craft solutions which might need to be changed in time, but not without empowering those who are managing that change the tooling necessary to adapt towards it.

But, if you didn’t engage Avanceé, how would you figure out these solutions? The easiest measure would be to simply say it out loud and hear yourself. Getting the issue/thought outside of your head and back into it via your ears will causes a resetting of the way its perceived. Will it enable you to better see than make the changes towards whatever that item is? Yes. But, only because at that point, you will have opened yourself to the realization that in order for the moment to change, the energy you need to be willing to put towards it is the first part of the map used by you and others to move on from it.

Technological Advents

Mon, 26 Nov 2018 19:07:00 -0400

Having written once and found the item gone into the ether, there was the day’s events spent thinking (in the background) about what it means to be at the front of various technological shifts. This topic was made more present when asked about a new keyboard being used — it makes a bit of sense in this season to think again towards advent and technological changes.

Oftentimes, we don’t notice those changes until they happen. Part of the blindness described by “The Innovator’s Dilemma:” shifts aren’t meant to happen when perception or expectation is ready for them to happen. As a matter of course, perception and expectation serve as guardians of what is the “now.” They are the chief ocular elements of doing the best with today’s lessons and continuing them forward.

And yet, when we rely on those elements too much (to “become comfortable” if you will), there lies the opportunity for something else to come from the underside. An unforeseen circumstance, or a likely consequence. Advents of technological change very rarely reveal themselves as the “ideal” next happening. It is a toy, too bulky, requires too many things to be unlearned — advent is marked by anticipation by only those whom society seems to put into a naive bucket.

That naivety isn’t blind. It is hopeful. Blind perhaps to the encumberments of expectations. It finds its way by ignoring or even tossing back those expectations into the face of today’s perspective. Perception finds itself on even looser footing. It looks for clarity among a changing landscape, and yet it has no tools with which to clear its lenses, to focus it light, or columns to ground its paths. Perception doesn’t realign itself to technological advents until what is hoped for has come. Then, and only then, can it begin to stabilize and draw together a langauge for what the new normal must be. Expectation comes behind this — usually dragging some sense of “what it used to be” until what “used to be” becomes “forgotten.”

Depending on the industry, region, or simply hobby, one could say that most of humanity is under a technological advent. There are many prophets who would proclaim one way over another. Who would encourage a strong break from the past and a hearty embrace of what’s to come. Others who move more deliberately. Noticing the changes, and yet gathering into their quiver the arrows and supporting tools necessary — they will take aim and strike forward when conditions meet their liking. And lastly there are those who will revolt until the bitter end. They aren’t wrong in such revolting. As a matter of course, they are most necessary — these luddities enable us to not forget what we might have shifted from, and call to form expectations and perceptions which aren’t born from newness, but have some sense of being part of a continued evolution.

Today was a chance to imagine and perform on a computing device, using two hands which were doing entirely different things, to make the surface of a large screen communicate a different reality. Hopefully, it is not the last change which will happen when inventing realities on and off screens. Hopefully, more of what it means to be human will be embraced by those who wish to empower people with the tools to design such worlds.

Conversations Create New Roads

Tue, 20 Nov 2018 01:12:00 -0400

‪Lots of email newsletters have been pushed out this year. So many are a collection of links, maybe some marketed goods, rarely long-form. But, where’s the conversation? Where’s the resulting products from those conversations? The convos to the concepts to the creations?‬

‪Been a year trying something different with Avanceé. Part of this has been an alternate signal in the newly formed “bucket of links at the cost of your email.” Perhaps it’s not a problem to be open‬ to a different path. Eigenwilligkeit a friend says. Yet maybe… it is the better path if something valuables to be hewn from this.

Forward isn’t exactly following the roads already made.

Should there be more branches like Micro.Blog, Mastadon, etc.? Should silo be defined by the niche more than the signal?

Or, is the responsibility of those who carve new roads in media and product do something new, while resonating with pieces of what is familiar from the old? It sounds philosophical but it’s not. Disruption first has to break its own chains before it can point liberty towards others’.

Clarity in Conversation

Mon, 19 Nov 2018 12:22:00 -0400

Each conversation is another lesson in what others might do or want to do in order to make steps forward. The most common theme comes from the peeling off of the stated problem to what the actual issue might be. Then sketching across an ocean of possibilities, guiding the direction of something simpler, something which may be better — even if we didn’t build anything to get there.

This is is Avanceé

A conversation turns to what its participants do for a living. A few questions around similarities and differences, then a path opens — “how do you step forward?” The resulting conversation is a back and forth of lessons. Some are clear, some require leaning on past experiences to stitch a relatable context. And then, the common theme arrives. The insight which was not forced upon the conversation reveals itself as a matter of the real course of productivity. This manifestation is the onus on which “work” finds its definition. It is here where Avanceé begins to articulate a simpler message, or a simply clearer one.

Those conversations bend reality. We keep bending, then start sketching.

What’s more often the case is that there isn’t enough time to think about the how and why one works. It might be done for reasons of reputation, deadline, or experiment, but its done as a part of what feels necessary to meet an attainable goal. That ideal state — experience — is what we listen for. In the heartbeat of working we are listening for how companies and their employees design their space, or experience another’s space. We listen for what they have agency towards, and what might be taken away. Between and around those artifacts, the desired expereince speaks loudly. Filtering the noise, we offer a solution which might need nothing more than a glance, or something purposefully built.

Design solves a problem. Art raises a question — @pak

Then there’s what’s built for that space. To take a conversation’s resolutions, and then create a manifestation of it which improves the state of someone’s or some team’s workspace — that part is the engineering of what had been complex into something that no longer is. For better and worse, there’s nothing about the tooling which is set in stone. That’s because what might be reengineered isn’t always software, its often also behavior and perception. We built, or draw up the detailed plans of what another builds, and then turn it loose to empower that conversation to become reality. Repacking the relationship of technology to humanity, the results land with the shape of “we should have always done it this way.”

Imagine packaging a way that understands why somebody does what they do, how they could do it differently, the benefits of being different and rapidly showing them the value and the extensibility of those lessons.

This is Avanceé.

How might you take your next steps forward? Let’s chat and find out.

Perceiving Productivity Normally

Mon, 12 Nov 2018 14:03:00 -0400

Using an iPad to teach how to use a PC changes perceptions and behaviors of productivity

Over the past month, have been working with a long-time client on changing the methods used to teach a few base-applications. A previous shift, from published workbooks to organization-specific content (lived within their servers within the apps being taught), greatly increased skills retention and workshop engagement. This recent change leverages Office 365 and OneNote, using the iPad to teach those applications from OneNote’s perspective. It invites a different discussion about information transfer and retention for day-to-day tasks. This has initially proved to be quite insightful (the instructor’s view). However there is more to explore for those persons who want to employ the iPad or similar against their normal workflows — which this method of teaching seems to be exposing more of.

Replacing Productivity’s Definition?

iPad doesn’t just replace, it changes . The question gets asked each time a new model or major software update happens because the voices speaking about the platform and hardware are too far removed from what others do for. The end of the Mashable 2018 iPad Pro review says it nicely:

…It’s such an intimate creation process that it made me realize that Apple’s not merely trying to change my or your old habits. Apple’s not trying to make the iPad Pro a laptop replacement because the device isn’t one. It’s trying to do something bigger: invent a new way of creating for a new generation that is not bound to the old computing laws of clicking a mouse…

Not being bound to former methods is a invitation to think better about the jobs to be done for computing devices. And for much of what the complaints levy (moving files from one physical or virtual share to another, command-scripts for said files, approval queues, etc.), work is more like moving chairs around and a sense of control, that really isn’t work at all for most. The work is in figuring out what someone else needs to move their chairs around.

When Normal Isn’t

It is fairly normal to think about the perspective of a producer when thinking about productivity. As a matter of defining work, the perspective of a person producing the work is the only perspective that matters when doing the work. That said, what is normal about productivity might not be so normal at all. The ways in which people come up with solutions to do the job that is required, is a mix of creativity on top of the framework that defines success measures for the business. If the creativity can be repeated, it becomes a part of that framework,no longer defined as creative (definition: being a unique behavior unseen or unapplied previously) by the worker. If the framework cannot injest the behaviors, or those behaviors become detrimental to the operation of the business, then creativity as a facet of work becomes relegated to being pushed outside of the company.

So, then, what really is work? Or rather, what more aligns with the perspectives of what it means to have computing as a tool to aide/do behaviors considered productivity because we are instinctively creative?

This is one of the questions this experiment is looking to answer. However it also seems to be running alongside similar thoughts from others as it relates to connecting the “jobs to be done ” with the experience those jobs are to enable.

Weekends in A Snap Space

Sat, 10 Nov 2018 10:17:00 -0400

Might be a weekend, but pressing forward deserves play spaces not always as linear as a weekday’s newsfeed

Intuitive As Design

Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:10:00 -0400

Arguing for intuition over prediction or known indicators? Yes and no.

In between a clearly identified problem and its “so obvious” solution is the chasm called opportunity. It is within this space so many projects live and die. Some of the better ones become well-known, not just for an ability to solve the initial problem, but for those people on its edges to also find providence towards a solution. In conversations with many about the goals for Avanceé, its clear that the problem space is one in which many just have a hard time articulating what exactly might be the issue. Not because they aren’t knowledgeable about the issues, but because clarity is a perspective, not a destination, for so many problems.

A project noticed over the weekend, Modulz seems to want to give voice to some of the problems encountered by those who are in developer and design spaces, but find the gap between demonstrating the solution and building it has too many layers. The product should be impressive when it ships. For (a not small amount of) developers and designers, it will address a very real problem in communicating clearly what the solution(s) is supposed to entail. A programmatically accurate representation of the solution, with the roadmap attached to those tasked with the tools to make the traveling smooth. It is strategically and practically correct as a design method. It isn’t living within the framing of intuition — that’s a good and bad thing.

When we share the concepts and designs from past projects, we are deliberate in sharing those pieces which sit on the side of softer-content. Scribbles, basic shapes, and low-fidelity representations of what has been eventually created leaves room for the story around what the design was supposed to communicate. This isn’t by accident. What many want to know is “what does their solution look like,” not “what is my problem not clearly stating” or “what am I not asking about the problem I’m communicating.” These questions aren’t supposed to be the basis for marketing an unknown entity. Yet, Avanceé is purposely running on that side of the track because opportunity rarely finds itself communicated in the initial conversation. Often, its in the perspective of the problem. A but more intuition than mapped prediction.

Modulz and similar approaches to enabling designers and developers to more clearly articulate solutions are an opportunity. However, this clarity comes best when leveraged with a piece of that “gut” feeling. If we were to take the term AI as augmented intelligence, then we would see that platforms like Modulz should exist not so much to make structure more explicitly understood, but augment what designers and developers do by intuition — see the problem and the solution from a different perspective. One which enables them to advance past the constraints of the issue, to the clarity of what is empowered when the problem’s core is answered.

Inventing the Other Stuff

Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:46:00 -0400

In between the actual projects taken up by this Avanceé banner, there’s some intentional thinking space given to creating or exploring items in a fuller fashion than perhaps where some of those projects might travel. Sometimes, this comes out fully expressed into a concept or process that’s mostly useful to others (for example, the SmartTrip Apple Watch Concept App spoken about on a few occasions). These expansions of thought, process, and tooling take their own direction, oftentimes coming into nothing, or needing a bit more discipline, knowledge, or resource-capacity to come to a clear conclusion. However, its intentional to keep these. They inform Avanceé’s direction, as well as how this effort continues to be shaped forward.

An idea — lightly expressed — will rarely garner much of a view. An idea with something behind it, something tangeable such as code, interactive screens, physical textures, etc. does more to the psyche. These are the elements of the other parts of what it means to do something out-of-the-box. Where a new box is created, and instead of skating to where the puck is going, there’s a new field made with altogether new rules. Is it necessary that every new idea does this? No. But, can inventing beyond current perspectives be done any other way?

Knowledge, experience, and creativity can join together and make nothing much more than noise. Or, it can have the affect of resetting the field. The theory of disruption flows down this line. And so does any applications of change and risk management. Creativity is the most intentional of these buckets. Knowledge is recognized, with experience accounted for. Creativity arises from the output of these projects and either informs what might have been a foolish journey from a fruitful one. Lightly or harshly expressed, intentionally thinking of ways to get outside of what’s familiar doesn’t just have the effect of inventing “other stuff,” but also the effect of shaping what others only later come to understand.

Experience Strategy & Engineering Complexity

Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:59:00 -0400

Came across a few terms when looking further into some of the problem spaces of digitally-augmented teams and organizations: experience strategy and complexity. Both of these terms speak to both the problem to be addressed, and the opportunities which lie at solving them. However, they might do so from differing perspectives and roles.

Experience Strategy really is the “strategy and planning” end of design. It is also the aspect closest to the emotional response of the client/customer. Experience strategy builds off of the other three aspects of user experience (if we are using the pictured matrix to define/describe UX).

Complexity is expressed throughout the three other squares within this matrix.

For Interaction Design, you are expressing everything from the physics of movement (screens, textures, colors, time-between-endpoints, etc.) to how those physics are programmed in such a manner to be testable and consistently deployed.
For User Research, the benefit of feed back to drive measured and unmeasurable outcomes cannot be overstated. But, until there is enough research to inform strategic decisions, nothin about what’s measured in the experience can have lasting value.
For Information Architecture, the structure of information, even down to the tone of language and the formatting of page/screen layouts informs the experience. Strategy is leveraged not just in what has been measured and works, but also in what has been transformed as media and mediums rise and fall in use/acceptance.

Augmenting processes and teams with tools and behaviors which have digital (both connected and not) means dealing with both experience and complexity. The challenge of process is not being bogged down by complexity, while not turning a blind eye towards its friction and impacts. The friction noticed within experience strategy enables the opportunity for solutions which seem simple on reflection, but are layered in how they arrived to that perception.

This isn’t a roadmap towards a better solution, but more like the gravel on the path. Mapping user experience around these skills and perspectives enables Avanceé to better address team and market challenges. But, also enables Avanceé’s clients to best express their problem areas so that a clear measure of success can be seen and achieved.

Why I Use Earn.com for Contact Form

Mon, 08 Oct 2018 18:40:00 -0400

In a recent conversation, it was asked why there’s such “friction” to contacting me/Avancee. For a little more than a year, I’ve been using a domain redirect to point towards Earn’s Bitcoin-powered contact platform. Not so much as a replacement for email, but as a replacement for the kind of communications which come via platforms like LinkedIn and others. For the most part, its been successful in what it filters. However, I do end up with some turned off from contacting/connecting because of it as that “front page.” So, per a recommendation of that conversation, here’s why I use Earn, and why this or similar might be a decent avenue for you also.

Header: Being My Own LinkedIn Experiment

As with many people, LinkedIn is a common place to “connect” with others who cross lanes with your professional dealings. And similar to others, I’ve had a LinkedIn profile for a long time — using as a resume-augmented space, a connection space, and a job search space. However, I’ve also grown weary of how LinkedIn and others monetize my use of their service and I receive little to nothing from that*. I’ve always thought of there being a better way to federate who I am to others, and have owned my own domain name and various web spaces under it for a few decades. Leveraging what I know about federation is a constant pull, especially in this age of GDPR, ad-based networks, dark profiles, and more.

Some time back, a company called 21.co showed up on a few social streams. Riding the blockchain-is-everything hype, these folks put together an interesting proposition: your inclusion on LinkedIn and other mail lists should compensate you, and the rising value of Bitcoin is the right way to leverage this. After investigating it, and consulting with some folks who are more knowledgeable about blockchain and alternate currencies than I, I put myself forward towards their platform.

*LinkedIn and other firms use premium and enterprise service levels to give access to profiles/personas (and sometimes to direct individuals). While using these services are free, to quote the saying, “if you aren’t paying for it, you are the product” often holds true. That’s not to say Earn is different in that manner; only that you have a chance to reap from whomever contacts you, or wants to add you to their contact list.

*My knowlege of these practices comes from work with a previous employer to which learning methods of how these platforms work was part of the primary role held.

Body: Implementing Bitcoin-powered Forms

The implementation on my end was simple. I signed up at 21.co (which later rebranded to Earn) and used domain forwarding to point a subdomain (contact.antoinerjwright.com) to that page. Once a person would come to that page, they’d have the option of:

Using the contact form to contact me
Requesting me to take a survey
Adding me to a mailing list

But, to do any of these, they would have to pay me. And only if I responded (to the message or survey) would they actually pay. The money is held in escrow for up to seven (7) days, then released if nothing is done.

So that means, if you were contacting me, you’d get the URL (contact.antoinerjwright.com) either via scanning my ring, from my business card, or because you went to one of the websites I manage; and then upon filling out the form, you’d have a button that says “Contact Antoine for $1. Now, that dollar could go to me, or be put over to one of six charities who have patterned with that platform. I’m no where near an internet celebrity, and so I made the choice that contacting me would cost $1 (changed it to $5 at one point, but that really didn’t do anything, so I changed it back).

That dollar would go into escrow and I would be notified both via email and through the Earn app that someone wants to contact me and has paid a dollar (or more). If it was a connection I wanted to make, I’d respond through the Earn interface, accepting the dollar and turning the communication into the normal email affair. If not, I’d reject, sending a friendly message, and the dollar would be returned.

Now, here’s where the Bitcoin bit comes into play. When I accept the dollar, it would go into my Earn profile but be converted into Bitcoin. Given that this isn’t the early days of Bitcoin, that’s ten-thousandths of a Bitcoin. But, it was something. The value of my Bitcoin “bank” would rise and fall depending on whatever was happening with Bitcoin. And at anytime, I could “cash out” to a Coinbase (and previous a few other) wallets. I’ve decided to keep things in Earn (for now) as I’m using this as an opportunity to learn how Bitcoin works, and whether the “value of connecting to me” really meets what I saw as an unfair proposition from sites like LinkedIn.

Let me emphasize, I don’t harbor any ill will towards LinkedIn (Facebook, Google, or any others). I think there business models of enabling people to connect across physical and social boundaries makes sense. I just would like to see a bit of what they earn from my connections; and in some cases let that more immediately go into my pocket.

For me, this is an experiment towards Bitcoin, how much friction people will tolerate towards connecting with others, and what it means to put a monetary value towards non-personal connections. We’ve more or less grown the internet on the backs of advertising supported models, and so something along the lines of permissioned-access and federated information works against what we’ve become used to. There is more friction in what I’m doing simply because its not what we are used to be doing.

Breadcrumbs: Engineering Connections

In order to get a better view into this experiment, I’ve been slowly removing my contact interactions from LinkedIn. There’s one guy I know who has left LinkedIn completely, but I’m not yet ready to do that. I’ve gone as far as to put into my bio there that my URL (which points to my Earn profile) is the only way I’d accept a contact. Further still, I’ve stopped accepting contact requests from recruiters, and lean heavily on connecting with persons there I’ve met personally or established a baseline relationship with (and I’d rather they not be in my phone book in some cases). Earn has enabled this kind of experience where I’m thinking a good bit more about the value of connecting to others, and not being as open as an email form, but also not being inaccessible either (I consult and freelance, can’t afford to be that inaccessible).

Having explained myself, I don’t imagine that it makes the decision to contact me easier or harder. But, it does give some boundaries to the friction which has been noticed. I plan on using Earn (even after its acquisition by Coinbase) until Bitcoin fails, Earn goes away, or I’m satisfied with the lessons. So far, I’ve been exposed to a number of blockchain ICOs and other alternate currencies that spin my mind in all kinds of ways. It is impressive, and disheartening. We’ve allowed contacting one another to swing towards a friction-less level, but done so at the cost of parts of ourselves. Earn seems a means to swing that level back; and if it means some friction until others get it, then that’s ok. I’m used to doing things before others.

If you’ve read this and would like to experiment/move to Earn, you can sign up here (this is referral link).

If you’ve read this and would like to engage me for consulting to (re)engineer complexity, such as what I describe here, for you or your organization, you can do so here.

The Disconnect

Thu, 04 Oct 2018 13:02:00 -0400

Talking w/client about offline options for a future project & remembered the innovative approach of ⁦‪@the__disconnect‬⁩ — given the environment of asking persons to own their attention, perhaps this is more of a necessary innovation 🤔 thedisconnect.co

Brigadoon Annapolis Transcript, Pt4

Thu, 04 Oct 2018 10:14:00 -0400

Final installment of the notes which led to our Brigadoon Annapolis lecture on Digital Humanism.

Humanism

I’ve mentioned the term agency a few times in this talk, and that’s more or less the core of what digital humanism design means. How are we using these tools in order to better understand what we do right and wrong? Some of this will come from putting information together with others — think along the lines of “wisdom of the crowds” or “communities dominate brands.” Both of those are excellent books by the way. Some of this will come from getting back in touch with how others are impacted by our actions or inactions. Yes, design is also attention to empathy. Lastly there’s this matter of trust. Trust is the name of the game right? We don’t have an economy without trust. We don’t have a basis for reputation and value without trust. We have possibilities becuase of trust. So let’s dig into why these three matter, and how we design humanity because of these three.

Pardon me if I say it like this, but sometimes I feel as if we speak about collaboration more as it is a theology rather than its a condition of our psychology. As someone bent a bit more towards the artistic end of the spectrum, collaboration takes on the duality of positive and negative interactions. This could be as simple as a design critique of a new application, all the way to a series of conversations which develop better lifestyle decisions for those engaging in public services. Collaboration is the way to go if you want to embrace success today. And no better is that seen than within many of the services we use.

Group chat, Slack, project management, MBAs, networking events, Amazon referrals. All of these (and more) are stages of collaboration. Collaborate however is a verb. It has an end result. Without agency of oneself, that end-result becomes muddled. And so you collaborate on a project, but the end result is a dark UI pattern keeping you from cancelling your Amazon account. Oh, you’ve embraced the theology, but in doing so, you’ve diminished the agency of those you’ve likely collaborated with.

Wait. That makes collaboration come across as a bit morbid. It isn’t. Its the action of a tool in this humane toolkit. Let’s move forward…

Regardless of how much you might collaborate with others, there’s always the perspective of the other person. How will they be impacted by your decision to do xyz? This question is really more of an aftershock of design — that is, what empathy is being employed to drive this action? We hear about empathy usually from a lack of it or it being considered inappropriately. Emojis are made, and people would like to use them, but they are all yellow faces with commonly Caucasoid features. A company supports veterans by employing them, but only places themselves in neighborhoods where veterans have done well for themselves financially and socially. A retail company employs seniors and people with disabilities, but leaves their public website and pay systems inaccessible to those with diminished sight and motor capabilities. Empathy isn’t exactly an uncommon topic. It just happens to have been given a bit more of a view due to how collaborative we’ve become.

Being collaborative is just one end of the continum. We realize our humanity not only in the context of one another, but also in the context of knowing ourselves. This tension, or friction, is how we come to define living, define humanity. When an item is able to tug on our sense of self, adding to what we already value about ourselves, then we say that it “gives life” that it “enhances what it means to live” or that it “follows with a pursuit of happiness.” The challenge of collaboration is therefore a challenge for an against such a personal metaphor of what it means to live. How can I embrace what it means to be along with others when I am also challenging with what it means to embrace what I am today? This tension is humanism, or rather, it is within this tension that we figure out what it means to become more human by each moment.

Brigadoon Annapolis Transcript, Pt3

Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:42:00 -0400

Continuing a sharing of the notes which led to our Brigadoon Annapolis lecture on Digital Humanism.

Filters, Awareness, Noise, & Poise

There’s that “design” word again. You see, this constellation of devices is simply the colors on a palette, tossed against the canvas of my life, aiming to make a decent picture of what life I’ve been living. Thing is, all of this connectivity, all of these services and their implications, these are merely a negotiation of noise and poise. Humanism is a philosophy of agency — a freedom to determine collective and individual movement. I’m leveraging my meger economic standing, alongside some quick knowledge of connected services, to create the life that works best for myself and others in this age. Digital humanism simply meaning that I’m using sand and electrons to come to this place of agency rather than theology or philosophy.

I think we’ve heard it termed by a few magazines very well: there’s a war for our attention, and the technology tools we wield are the protagonists and antagonists. If you are a “techie” then, there’s a good chance you welcome the additional filters devices and services may offer. You learn coding to build your own, or scripting to manipulate others. You ascribe to open source philosophies if your viewpoint is access and ability. You take to decentralization if you’ve noticed the levers of control are stacked against you.

If you aren’t a techie, you’ve got the other side. Tools work when they do. You opt for putting technology in its place, and most of the time, its not in the space of taking over your attention. It feel more like noise when the conversation happens. Perhaps something like the adults in the Peanuts cartoons, “blah blah blah.” Ultimately understandable, but not without several moments of intelligible babble. Reading manuals, babble. Understanding terms of service, cookie and privacy notices — babble. And don’t even get to talking about cryptocurrencies, 2FA, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. It is all noise.

For me, and people who are oriented similar to myself. It has been towards these topics we’ve found a deliberate sense of poise (instead of noise). Not so much to understand all of it, but to flow with what is and isn’t important about them. When people ask about my Oura Ring for example, I don’t go into the levels of machine learning which correspond to some of the leading-edge understandings about the narrow application of data on wellness. I’ll speak instead about how its helping me understand sleep and the implications of one bad sleep night. I’m not so much confident in what I know, but comfortable in what I don’t know and let both shape how I’ll employ agency to live forward.

Brigadoon Annapolis Transcript, Pt2

Tue, 02 Oct 2018 12:33:00 -0400

Continuing a sharing of the notes which led to our Brigadoon Annapolis lecture on Digital Humanism. View Part 1 of the notes if this is your first exposure to this series.

Constellation of Devices I could be called a modern-day cyborg. Starting with the prescription glasses and going down to the cadaver’s ACL which is nailed into my knee, I have been augmented in a few means. And this isn’t even to mention the advanced sugars, intentionally and unintentionally modified fruits and vegetables making up my diet. This is a talk about digital humanism design however; so what are the augmented parts of me which I’ve had a hand in designing?

I spoke of prescription glasses, however we also have my sunglasses (also prescription). These are made by the company Snap, and have a camera on them enabling me to take 10 second videos or single frame pictures of items at my eye level. Essentially, a memory device a bit closer to my eyes.

While I don’t have them in right now, my ears usually also have a memory-aid device. Oh, you call these headphones or earphones. I call them AirPods, and due to their ability to connect to my watch, phone, and tablet, I’m able to ascribe audial soundscapes to various contexts. Sometimes, that’s background music while working or exercising. Sometimes, that’s speaking with others. Sometimes, its merely recording myself for future reference. I use sound like spatial markers. Sounds enable me to enter or reengineer spaces so that I can navigate time and presence better.

On my left arm is an Apple Watch. Many of use have or have at least heard of the connected watch or wearable technology trend. On my end, the Apple Watch is something of a wellness coach. This is the 5th or 6th wearable of this type. I’ve had three from Polar, one from Samsung, and am on my second Apple device. This one also has cellular capability, so in addition to monitoring wellness, I can also message and call persons, use the digital wallet, and a few other apps I’ve got loaded here.

Also on my left hand is a ring. I’m not married however. This is called an NFC Ring. It uses a very shortwave radio frequency connection to transfer information from the ring to another computing device. In my case, my ring serves as both business card and key.

The right side of my body has only one connected device, it too is a ring. This ring is another wellness tracker, called the Oura Ring. This tracking is a bit different than my Apple Watch in that instead of tasking me with awareness of what I’m doing, its giving me the context of how I’m recovering from what I’ve done. Tracking sleep, HRV, and other metrics, this ring enables me to work alongside others in ways which speak to my stress and energy levels. And also, provides a decent trend map towards what I might or might not have done to design a better lifestyle for myself.

Brigadoon Annapolis Transcript, Pt1

Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:36:00 -0400

Am going to spend a few posts sharing the thoughts and transcript/speaker notes which went into our Brigadoon Annapolis talk (Digital Humanism). Besides being a means to see how the lecture was created, it also enables some other eyes into what has been gestating within this Avanceé cocoon.

Comment via Twitter DM:

That’s kind of it… to some degree (and maybe its also in what I read & tweeted about tonight), I think that what I’m aiming for is an activation of what’s in us to do what we are building tools, services, behaviors… culture(s) to do. Not saying that there’s no worth in the sand-electric we are enabling to orbit around us. But, that in building these tools, in enabling a “mind that exists outside of the psycho-physical self” that we might be missing much of the connected-ness we probably already have an aren’t using. Feels like plants and squid/octopus have figured it out… feels like for us that the evolution to tooling might have stunted our ability to being

Comment via Slack DM

I wonder, could Avanceé be that change that promotes theory, process, AND tools that are easily available?

From the whiteboard (12 Aug):

Find a box, map its edges, then imagine and build what lives outside of those edges

The resulting introduction:

“Digital Humanism Design” seems like a complicated and in-depth topic. Around its edges, that could certainly be the case. If we were to look at the transformation happening in developed societies since just the introduction of the web browser in 1993, there’s been a significant change in not only how we interact with one another, but how we’ve come to define what’s best and worst about one another because of those interactions.

Professionally, there’s another transformation underfoot: the awareness, and pivot paying attention to the beauty of form and the empathic predictor of outcomes. Oh, the simple term here is “design,” but that word is so loaded to visual-only perspectives that it makes sense to place this discussion on what specifically design envokes. It might be sufficient to say things that “technology today seems more stale than when I was growing up,” but that ignores the psychological and social affects we’ve gathered since establishing that core paradigm. What we consider good design is more or less a figment of our teen years, not necessarily something which matures like the cartilage in our nose and ears.

View Part 2

Week’s Perspective

Sun, 30 Sep 2018 21:29:00 -0400

Erasing the whiteboard and readying for another week of challenges, insights, and new perspectives to open. Sometimes the photograph of what’s to come starts as an artist’s dream

Your Ring Does What?

Mon, 24 Sep 2018 22:59:00 -0400

One of the ways in which Avanceé finds its bearings within conversations happens around the constellation of devices on the person. For example, at The Brigadoon Annapolis it was Snap’s Spectacles which took the lion’s share of attention. Though, it was the explaination of the other devices which gave grounding to what’s been happening.

One of those items, the NFC Ring, is commonly referred to as “where the business card lies.” However, the friction of getting it to some devices, specifically Apple’s iPhone devices, leaves the conversation lacking some of the punch that it could. That’s led to this. A rethinking of what a ring can do, and potentially some paths further into both fashion and cultural association.

There are a few other companies which have taken on a similar revisiting of the lowly ring:

Token is soon to release their ring which is an identity and transaction-oriented device. Their ring aims to replace keys (door, computer, etc.) and wallet (transit cards, work access, etc.).
Motiv has gone a similar route to Oūra and has an activity and heart rate monitoring device. This is a more direct replacement for wrist-style activity trackers, though some work has been done towards also promoting wellness nad recovery.
HelioS seen at CES 2017; this is a ring used to monitor sunlight that hits the skin by measuring the Vitamin D.
The Oura Ring is similar to the Motiv in that it tracks activity and wellness. However, its focus on sleep and recovery paints it into a similar-but-opposite coin to Motiv.

The NFC Ring is a much simpler approach. From a technical standpoint, it is just a few very low-powered near-field (RFID) antennas, encased within a ceramic casing. From there, any device which also has an NFC chip/antenna and the software to interpret can read what’s on the ring.

There are times at which this can be advantageous. As mentioned earlier, the NFC Ring can be utilized as a business card replacement. One of the two areas of the ring has a vCard containing basic information (name, email address, phone number) or other text formats (links to images, social media, forms, etc.) and it just needs to be read in order for the information to transfer. For Android devices, this is a usually a simple affair. Simply tap the ring to the back of the device, and there’s a prompt to download/go to the intended content. On Apple’s iPhone devices, it is a bit more involved (models since iPhone 7 can read NFC when a reader application is activated on the device). This “extended touch” can augment both the relational handshake which happens during a meeting, and also drive a former action (the business card exchange) into a novel, connected/digital experience.

When thinking about ways in which technologies can augment human conditions, these are some of the experiments Avanceé works towards. We think the advantage of such experiements allows for an exploration of triggers, behaviors, or even methods which might have a clearer meaning in their traditional context, but these technologies enable us to ask different questions about what’s being exchanged, how we wish to be augmented/reduced, or what other friction-points exist in digital spaces.

The failure points of some technologies which lie at the edges of human experiences. Yet, so does opportunity to reinvent what might seem to be conventional. It may very well be with wearables, automation, quantum, and other explorations that we’d find another definition of humanity that extends from what we’ve always done, to what we can do now. You might meet Avanceé, and instead of a card, it might simply be an exchange through rings. A ring which extends your ability touch, transfer, transact, read, and interact with the environment creates a much different context for jewelry than what we’ve traditionally assigned it. Such an edge is worth the rough edges to cut new roads.

Brigadoon Annapolis via Kownacki

Sun, 23 Sep 2018 22:08:00 -0400

‪Enjoying a trip back to @the_brigadoon Annapolis via the pics taken by @bkownacki — so many of them capture the energy of the time there… especially shots during our lecture: expressive, engaging, and a hint of “learning about the future-present”‬

Brigadoon Annapolis on Snap

Fri, 21 Sep 2018 14:52:00 -0400

Lots shared, follow on Snapchat to see all the shots: www.snapchat.com/add/arjwr…

Fri, 21 Sep 2018 00:01:00 -0400

‪Going to share clips of our “digital humanism” talk for @the_brigadoon (on the boat) via @Snapchat @Spectacles tomorrow‬. A few clips from tonight already snapped/posted.

‪Follow for updates, or add via Snap: www.snapchat.com/add/arjwr…‬

Immersed in iOS Shortcuts

Thu, 20 Sep 2018 10:22:00 -0400

Would usually take a week+ to read @macstoriesnet’s iOS 12 Review, but the writing made it a one-night affair; the Shortcuts section especially. To be a “power” user & not use these would indeed diminish the value of an iOS experience www.macstories.net/stories/i…

Nuance and Apple Watch Series 4

Wed, 19 Sep 2018 16:03:00 -0400

Reading, listening, and watching reviews of Apple Watch Series 4 For as much as reviewer’s who have had a limited amount of time can speak to features, usability, and even nuance seems to be missed. The clarity of what Apple is doing seems to be only alluded to buy a few. Perhaps there’s room for a different take… Maybe not a review, but a different kind of perspective amidst the noise 🤔

Sketch2Code Homework

Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:07:00 -0400

Doing some homework around @Microsoft’s #Sketch2Code for a bit today. This is the kind of action which could easily be a workflow/Shortcuts action within an app like @fiftythree @FiftyThreePaper — for simply conveying the initial steps of a concept the way we work at least

(re)Starting with New Assumptions

Mon, 17 Sep 2018 16:38:00 -0400

Have had a number of positive conversations since starting on this Avanceé journey. For the most part, conversations have been positive. Something about someone focusing on their own narrative, while also being open to sowing into the lives of others, has something of its own pay off. At the same time, Avanceé was started to become its own endeavor. There’s strategy and case studies, there have been concepts and histograms, and yet the things being thought through are still a bit further out there than what is being done in the world now.

So there’s a healthy pivot (and a rewritten About page) here at Avanceé. What happens when in this conversation about the implications of changing your workflow, or changing your assumptions, is less about looking for the next profit-filling moment, and more about what’s the next livable moment? The likely areas of extension and growth for Avanceé is less about having a product that needs physical space. It is more about the equity gained when empowering others to be a better self. It is much less knowledge in a can, and more wisdom as a stimulant. Everything about the focus for Avanceé has been best met when addressing individuals and niche moments who have less a “how can I be more profitable” aim, and have more of a “what are the things we aren’t thinking about, to which (Antoine thru) Avanceé is able to not only think about, but see clearly enough to create attainable opportunity?”

Does all of this mean that Avanceé hasn’t been viable as a venture to this point? No. This was started as a genuine expression of a psychosocial and technological conversation to which there is not always as clear an answer, or as easy to find expression. There are reviewers, journalists, bloggers, analysts, vloggers, and casters. There are not as many conceptual persons pushing things to this edge. Grafting new-ish thoughts to new-ish platforms, across common and uncommon lines, for the sake of searching out what might be beyond those semantically well-formed models. Its viable as a thoughts-space, and might even be moreso as an internet business. But, figuring that out has meant to challenge assumptions, while leaning on what has largely found voice for very few.

The assumptions to reset the machine: there are changes which have always been easily available, but mostly hidden or obscured because of the processes or tools in front of our eyes now.

What are the outlets to all of these inputs that create or foster this assumption? Some of them have been expressed and will continue to. There will be some expanding of thought on a weekly article. Sharing concepts is a bit easier said than done, but not becuase its hard to create concepts — some are just bound by agreements and context such they cannot be shared until much later. There are links shared, a thread many who do similar sites might also offer. But, the value in all of this is an effect in creating something very hard to capture in a traditional pricing worksheet. Is it a service map/matrix, UI components, presentation, or reports? Probably and yes. There’s more which goes in than which is expressed out. The assumption is that by the time it goes out, it will be of such a value that you’d come back here, or share something of specific value with someone who needs a shot of something different.

(re)Starting Avanceé with with a simple assumption: here is a resource that’s impartially outside of your space, listening and learning the levers which will affect your space sooner than you are paying attention to.

Thanks to the Episode 40 from The Knoweldge Project for helping to put these thoughts into a clearer form of expression.

Normal Until Disaster

Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:38:00 -0400

Natural disasters often spring thoughts of what works and doesn’t work about the normal processes and tools we utilize. Needing the movement of electrons to power processes might make some things visible, but also endears us to segments of living which are not as easy to keep grounded.

Livability As Productivity

Mon, 10 Sep 2018 15:30:00 -0400

Avanceé has accidentally been speaking towards two roads, design as normative to computing and productivity’s redefinition. Most of this is tied to some simple and straightforward observations across several industries. Yet, even these two tracks point to a better or more perfect definition of the “living outside of the box” kind of innovation: livability.

There’s something interesting about many USA/NA conversations about areas such as transportation, education, etc. — a lot of it centers around “what does it mean to be productive?” Much of that definition of productivity begins around some conversation on return on investment. For what you put into sustainable and unsustainable systems, there has to be a measure of “overflow” by which those who invested get a positive outcome. But, when you stop quantifying that outcome in number such as efficiency, speed, profit, etc., you begin getting to those harder to define measures of happiness, contentment, livability, and more.

There’s a wonder then about taking livability and turning it (and similar hard-to-measure constructs. If we were to turn livability into that metric, then what does productivity look like:

How long can a call center agent stay seated and still maintain tonal responsibility with the customer?
Do we build schools and business parks with walking tracks or parks which separate parking from other spaces in order to foster more spontaneous interactions?
Does a credit for non-personal transportation to a workspace add to or take away from a company’s livability index, carbon credits, etc. as part of its reporting on environmental impact?

There are other questions like this worth considering as something of a livability index, and basically a definition of productivity (and consumption) which asks for active consideration of what makes a livable context.

When the box is “what is livable,” is there really productivity, or is there life?

Experiments Amore

Tue, 04 Sep 2018 19:18:00 -0400

Going to experiment again tomorrow… been playing w/potential tweak to service offerings. Tomorrow will be a good measure of whether that net can be cast fully

Asking Better UX Questions

Mon, 03 Sep 2018 19:45:00 -0400

Stumbled across a discussion about user experience (UX) and a new tool from Microsoft called Sketch2Code the other week. Had this to offer:

It seems w/AI & ML we need to stop thinking about computers as “process/calc.” Rather, how they enable us to be better, while doing computing better. We sketch, they code. Can that turn into a positive for all? That’s the kind of questions I think UX should be trying to answer

This kind of response takes a certain type of accountability from the UX community. There’s a challenge it offers to think about user experience away from, and outside of, the (necessary) shape of the space. Yes, the well-worn stereotypical conversation about UX divulges into Photoshop/Sketch versus everything else, the affordances of/battles with Agile development, and whatever new tool/method can be used to convince stakeholders to “care before doing.” None of these are wrong in totality, but they also miss some of the main point of UX: improve the reliability of communication between the user and the producer.

Sketch2Code is the kind of application which seems to share in the sterotypical conversations UX and UI development folks will get into. It is an open sourced implementation of Microsoft’s Artifical Intelligence (AI) engine. It is rough around the edges, yet polished just enough for senior developers, UXers, and engineers to pick up what’s being put down — can a tool augment an aspect of the creative process that’s often where the gap between idea and execution arise (but is not seen until later)? Mentioned in another tweet, sketching is declarative; it is a different mental model than “code and show me.”

Being able to sketch, even badly, pushes conversations forward. Though yes, it doesn’t (and shouldn’t) answer all the permutations of consequences and affordances of users’ actions. But that’s not what users (and eventually stakeholders ask). They literally are asking UX: can you show me my normal, then push forward or backwards in areas that optimize what it is we (think we) see?” The UX conversation doesn’t so much address that question as much as it uses it as a means to launch into tools and methods. Sketch2Code turns that on its head. Then asks UX, does it have the skills necessary to continue the conversation while enabling what’s being built (quickly).

Ouch.

A concept previously shared seems like the logical evolution of Sketch2Code. Because once your can get an idea on a whiteboard, and use the non-seeing abilities of a camera to do something with that board, you only need to interact (test, tweak, and push to a public state). Yet, the ideation of this gets to a stopping point with UX because of the questions this field will ask (what are the transitions, what style library will be used, Sketch or Framer, etc.). It will get built when a developer/engineer tosses those questions aside and just starts building, or when Sketch2Code gets its obvious next “ sketch and interpret.”

For the UX space, when your tools become smarter is a better conversation. The questions that drives, will always equal a better user experience for all.

MicroMobility Podcast

Tue, 28 Aug 2018 12:22:00 -0400

Really interesting… never met @asymco yet this is maybe the 3rd time having noticed him syncing/pivoting to a similar line of thought & work…

Listening forward to this micromobility podcast series…

Our 1st thought: “What will be the highway system/McD’s of #micromobility”

More to come in a future long-form

Design, Design Systems, & Patterns

Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:26:00 -0400

“Design” is a recognized topic in many corporate circles. The value of what design does for business has become the next and loudest crest of conversation. Some of the tones of this conversation are muted — design speaks to something “felt” but also “known.” Some of those tones are louder — for example, should some types of designers be credentialed, the dark patterns noticed after design is done, etc.. In all respects, the conversation is good to have. It speaks to a maturity of matter and form being a part of that identity of productivity. And at the same time, there are patterns design simply unveils, rather than it directs.

Design systems are another way to view this conversation. Design systems are a collection of patterns, components, and practices in which the teams who developed the system are saying, “here are the individual elements which make up the activity and perception of our business; if you are looking to reproduce the same results, follow alongside this template.” Design systems aren’t a formula per se, but they are elements which define a product which have usually been validated technically and in the marketplace. For the most part design systems accomplish this not by giving away the product, IP, or unique features of the company, but it does give way to the thought processes, creative methods, and sometimes a product very similar to the company core offering. If a company has a significant enough product, or is in a well-established marketplace, it is not uncommon to assume there is some design system (or branch of one) in place. At the same time, the lack of a design system doesn’t as much speak to a lack of design, but maybe a lack of being able to communicate the systems which led to the market being designed.

That said, before the design system can be put in place, and really, even before there can even be much design, there’s some pattern about the company and its culture which should be recognized. There are interdependent systems at play, before there’s something crafted or unveiled (re: design) to be spoken towards. Every crevice of the company can recognize and have a hand in crafting these items, but some will regard creativity differently than others. Design isn’t just what something looks like. A system that creates avenues for companies to empower themselves and others forward is very much a system before design — but may eventually get to a point where design can be talked about and maybe packaged into a coherent framework for others to validate, discuss, or build on top of. Pattern recognition is the responsibility of all in the company.

Design is the recognized topic, but pattern recognition isn’t as much noted. It doesn’t sound so “modern” even though design is nothing more than communicating that there was a pattern which was recognized. Enabling members of your team/org/company to become pattern recognizers puts them on the path of holding and maintaining substantial conversations which might result in communicating better design. And as that happens, design doesn’t just land as the “topic” but as something very core to how that company operates. Can design happen without a design system? Yes. Can you afford to have systems which aren’t able to be communicated by those who use them (not just those who build them)? No.

Network Effects and Twitter Removal

Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:14:00 -0400

Thinking about taking some more chances with the content posted through this @microdotblog account and it hits that some of the reason that the jump hasn’t already happened is because of so many of the network effects gained (chained?) to Twitter. Whereas some people find it easy to make the migration, a carefully curated — and global — conversation around several topics just isn’t able to happen here (yet).

Yet, if/when it does will it merely be like when Jaiku was removed from the social media sphere and usurped by Twitter (the network being better because of quantity and quality of those conversing), or will it be more like a series of isolated conversations, loosely held together by the threads the pioneering users have made? Can’t really remove something that’s grafted itself into a fabric of conversation so easily. And at the same time, when it is removed, what will its overall effect be on those who chart what comes next?

Productivity As Identity

Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:31:00 -0400

Shifting modes of transportation invites a revisit into what productivity looks like. When one adds a commute, they add contemplative time. If they are the driver, there’s less time to spend in connected-thought, yet more time can be spent in and out of deep thought. If they instead add a physically exerting style of commute, doing work is more the space of contemplate and solving than of ticking off task boxes or replies. To add a more passive method invites the ability to reply, to tick the boxes, and even to segment the moment into aspects of deep thought. What does productivity look like if it is all of these modes interdependently being given place and priority?

Within this exploration of digital humanism, productivity has been given an inspector’s gaze. When the work is connected and digital, there’s some bending of the rules which have normally governed workspace. Perhaps becuase we realize that connecting dots needs is less about space and more about relationship. Perhaps productivity is more or an assumed identity than it is a destination. And therefore, we take the routes towards becoming productive when opportunity enables us to do so with the least amount of friction.

Tools and techniques shape and inform this character called productivity. Writing in an office, cafe, or classroom seems different, but the identity taken on is the same. Does it matter that the structures which compensate productivity recognize that space for its identity to be held onto? Yes. And there’s the challenge. Information-based fields aim to unattach the location from the activity — grant the worker agency to work. While other fields reshape themselves to the realities of the less context-imposed spheres around them. Does it matter that Slack makes us always available? Does it matter that the cafe’s wifi blocks Slack? Where does the work matter?

If thinking through these questions provokes more questions, it likely because when we talk about productivity as identity, we are talking about a time-value replacement which isn’t easy to explain, yet, readily able to be heard:

In the social act model, communication takes the form of a gesture made by an individual that evokes a response from someone else. The meaning of the gesture can only be known from the response, not from the words. There is no deterministic causality, no transmission from the gesture to the response. If I smile at you and you respond with a smile, the meaning of the gesture is friendly, but if you respond with a cold stare, the meaning of the gesture is contempt. Gestures and responses cannot be separated but constitute one social act from which meaning emerges.

Esko Kilpi and others have long drove into the context that work is changing. Yet, what they and others seem to allude to, but not outright say, is that so many derive identity from their inputs, that they define life only by them. If the work and workspace begin to change, then that identity isn’t just challenged, but its altered. In another article, Kilpi lays out 10 principles of digital work, and in doing so offers the ingredients for a different identity than the one which has defined productivity/work for the past 3-5 generations. Creating value is an instigating work, not a digging work. Productivity is therefore not what you do, but an aspect of whom you are. To this, augmentation by connected devices and services takes on another, far more invasive premise: evolution.

Awareness or Aware-less

Mon, 13 Aug 2018 12:43:00 -0400

Tweeted the other day about some new explorations happening with indentity and authentication and it was pretty clear that it isn’t just a question about technology finding its way of being useful but not overwhelming. There is (as there is often) as sense of connected technologies either making us more aware of the surroundings around us, or making is less aware of who we are in the context of this world around us.

The commentary about the “end of the ad-based internet” also contributes to such a view. If social networking is more or less surveillance of a different term, then what we are aware of is that we have less agency to move about. If we make social media posting the default (the “Google is tracking you all the time” discussion) then being connected indeed contributes to being aware-less of the works of the world around us. We go from being purveyors of a world we are meant to discovering, to consumers of worlds in which others discover for us.

So then what does it mean for these tools and their threads to make us more aware? Is it as simple as “agency?” Can I control the flow, control the tone, or filter? Perhaps? Maybe its a sense of “turning it off without reprisal from the social-validating relationships around us?” Does being digital portend being connected to other spheres with and without agency to do something about it? And if so, what are the responsibilities left at the door of those who are connected to? What can we really be aware of when there are so many ways to connect the dots?

The answer to all of these is probably “yes.” Those who are near-native to connected spaces will find novelty in being disconnected, in taking agency around what connectivity offers. Those who are a bit less native will endow less value to connectivity that doesn’t remind them of a “more pure” version of themselves. The structures around them, while changing the rules of what it means to be “in community” will buck against their feelings of what is nature, what is honest, and what isn’t healthy (for them).

Awareness of yourself; aware-less of yourself. Almost more philosophical than it is technological and literal. Leaves us almost where we started:

When devices begin to become more embedded within one’s personal social fabric, do we gain awareness of other sensory possibilities, or do we lessen our awareness of the world(s) around us?

Reading, Recognizing, & Lenses

Tue, 07 Aug 2018 12:40:00 -0400

Years before the genesis of Avanceé, there was Mobile Ministry Magazine, a website and magazine geared to assisting faith-based groups better understand and apply mobile and other connected technologies. The challenge then was it was a perspective much further out than some groups were willing to consider. Yet, it was heard in time, and the audience grew and sparked several other movements (many of which still heavily influencing faith and connectivity today).

In its nadir, MMM began talking about some of the next maneuvers of connectivity and the faith. Though not spoken about directly, machine learning figured heavily into that view. This too was a viewpoint much further ahead of where many in the space were attending. It was also beyond the scope of MMM to speak towards those areas (even if it did demonstrate what’s possible from the mobile-appendage and connected services). Since MMM’s closing, it has been interesting to see others experiment towards a life beyond mobile also.

Bible Lens is a new application from the folks at YouVersion. It uses a combination of images taken on the mobile device, along with YouVersion’s dataset containing Bible references, cross-references, topical subjects, and more to create an image-text mashup. It uses what it can discern from the image against that dataset in order o create this image-text mashup. In doing so, YouVersion hopes that it will highlight to the user (and then to whom the user shares) the connection between the lives they live and the Biblical text they follow.

YouVersion began as a bible reading application. It was their intention to do what other bible applications had failed to do — increase reading (and therefore knowledge and application) by non-pastoral persons. Bible Lens seems to take that vision and push them into another direction: from encouraging reading, to now recognizing. This sounds like a shift of mission, however, it is an acknowledgement that contextualization is more difficult than just assigning literacy. Comprehension happens within a context of how ones lives, and it seems YouVersion is aiming to use machine learning to connect the images we take of our lives, to the codecs we use to navigate. This can be dangerous (there are several cannons of the Christian bible for example; does YouVersion cross-reference all of them, or just a set the user selects, or a set they select). This can also be advantageous to developing better machine learning models (image and non-image based) which enable other types of filtering, contextualization, and even mashups not even imagined.

YouVersion does recognize however their view of reading isn’t the end-point for literacy. This machine-assisted viewpoint is something many industries are coming to, and not all have been able to imagine well enough to navigate, or be motivated enough to move once imagined. What’s outside of the box for them was taking reading from their container to the images people have on their connected devices. From there, they added value by connecting their lives to the codes which bind them together. How might other companies figure out similar? It might be as simple as going from reading to recognizing what else lies outside of their boxes. At least, that’s what Avanceé aims to help groups realize.

Mobility

Mon, 23 Jul 2018 18:09:00 -0400

There’s much change happening about transportation. In urban areas, the technology which has fueled the hockey-stick like acquisition of smartphones, has upended ride-hailing, personal, and public transportation options. In the macro-industry view, advances in automation are challenging everything from where autos are sold, to the repetitive tasks (and resulting health concerns) of those who put those autos together. More than simply responding to oil versus electric, there’s just a shift happening in and around transportation which could be looked at as part of the same shift which started with steam, bicycles, and industry in the late 1800s.

Help me get there

Mobility can be looked at in such a simple phrase. “Get there” could be as simple as “get my presence there” (which describes the advances in radio/telephone which birthed movies, TV, and the Internet). It could be as expansive as putting someone to work, at the best rate for both the employer and employee — and as detailed as when the employee chooses one transit option, the employer gains or loses the flexibility for them to get to another place economically. Mobility is termed a noun, but it it’s really more transitional. It describes a transaction of time and space, enacted personally and impersonally.

To take from the start of one part of this shift: bicycles. Bicycles still rank as probably one of the most ingenious of humanity’s inventions. Such a simple set of simple machines comes together to enable an economy of movement of which it seems no other land or air animal can match (sorry, the sea is a different category). The bicycle spurred the development of rubber in various directions (tire, road compound, sealant, clothing, etc.). It enabled women and other social groups to travel-and-create their own spaces away from the dominant voices of their times; while also speaking to the inability or extra-ability of groups of people to transform sections of their cities. One could argue, the bicycle is the social movement we’ve not yet shifted down from. In its expression of mobility, the bicycle transposed time and space for the individual, and for the environments which allowed those trails to be taken.

What’s most clear about mobility as we go forward within this century, is that mobility will be empowered, or curtailed, through environmental, political, and cultural factors. Social mobility for some groups will be like a bicycle which has gained gears. For others, the gears they have gained now need to become internalized, become less resistant to external elements, and maybe even use a different chain in order to continue moving. Environmental mobility will ask that we look not just at where we want to travel, but what we might be leaving behind as some groups become consumers before they are asked to think about the wastefulness and efficiencies of what they consume. Sharper attention will be paid to cultural mobility — some groups deserve the agency to get onto their own bicycles, and not be limited by those who have been riding nearly-unimpeded for ages.

In a sense, “help us get there” is less a motto, and more the oil in the chains. Where we travel next might need a bit more tuning to the chain than what we’ve been doing to date.

Image: Tern Verge D9, taken at Contee Bikes DC

Project Idea: Wellness Enabler

Wed, 18 Jul 2018 01:03:00 -0400

Had an idea earlier this year about purchasing a health company (I Should buy A Digital Health Company); haven’t really moved from it, but have put some work into sculpting what exactly about a health company enables Avanceé’s vision…

…it’s deeper than organic. Wellness as enabler 🤔

Blockers and Filters

Mon, 16 Jul 2018 13:10:00 -0400

In one of our recent projects, we are mapping workflows which are no longer being used due to organizational and staff changes. In doing so, we’ve been doing some light assessing of what the organization has been doing since those workflows and methods were compromised. What we find is what’s true at every company, people find a blocker to a way of working, and like water, they seep around the walls until there’s a better route found.

There’s actually nothing right or wrong about reorientation. In the course of any behavior or process, this happens as a natural evolution. The difficulty is fighting the urge to just evolve and not have bricks in a place of understanding from what’s being evolved from. For the companies who have engaged Avanceé so far, it been our ability to visualize those bricks of past actions and understandings, and turn those into questions and potential roads for ways forward. One group doesn’t want to do the old workflows, but they want the benefits of automation — the key to their benefits will be in what they’d done previously. Another group wants to deploy a more accountable transaction mechanism — the key to their benefits isn’t in customer acquisition, but in communicating minimal customer friction.

Reorienting in this wise ends up taking on the persona of a filter rather than a blocker. A blocker prevents/inhibits movement. It is a wall — immovable, impenetrable by design. It is an enforced boundary. This space of workflow transformation (and really, org transformation) needs something more like a filter. First, a method to collect all the relevant (and some of the non-relevant) inputs. Second, the filter itself needs a few levels of filtration. There might be large holes initially to allow for all but the most unfit of behaviors, then smaller holes each level down until the most pure behaviors and actions remain. We do this with conversations, mind mapping, and sketchnotes, though this can and does come in several other mediums. Lastly, there’s a pouring and mixing of what remains into a new container — a new brick. This remade packaging doesn’t forget the lessons of the old, but since we’ve filtered the legacy behaviors and actions, we are able to continue with what works best, and what is less likely to need a major adjustment later. We might add to the mix, and that’s ok. What is used has been filtered to its essence, and now is in a “best fit” scenario.

We do this and end up pushing the boundaries of what constitutes working, what constitutes success/failure. The ways we are working are by no means a panacea for how to continue working, but are seeing as just a slightly lighter sketch on which a harder imprint or eraser will follow. Does it have a defined shape by the end? Yes. But, not because we started with a shape. It is similar to what a great sculptor would say, “there was always beauty in the stone, it was just my job to remove what kept you from seeing it.”

Blockers as a guide? As a building block? Or, are those walls the stitches which build your filters so that you can better simplify what it means to work forward? We prefer to posture blockers as the latter. So in this way the filters engaged will cause us not to add our own slant to what is there, but will clarify what your team has always known to be true about your efforts.

On Workflows

Mon, 09 Jul 2018 15:01:00 -0400

Many years ago, the word/phrase to be found around the workplace was “workflow.” Between the many folks selling workflow solutions, large companies making initiatives on top of initiatives in order to improve/measure/etc. workflow, and the various technical languages which jumped the shark into being “workflow enablers” for those who needed a bit more agency, it was a another one of those fervor moments you could only just sit and wait it out. And yet, so much about the idea of understanding workflows isn’t just key to understanding how businesses will be done but also understanding how things are done.

For example, take the process by which teams from different companies come together to craft a proposal. The structure of the group dictates who will be the gatekeepers, even though the role of every member is to contribute some kind of content for the proposal. From the developers and designers who might be tasked to envision a concept for the eventual state of the product, to the resource and financial analysts who need to know the value of inputs, outputs, and their impacts across a very fluid timeline, there’s a great deal to pull together. Thinking about this within the concept of a seamless workflow you ask questions such as:

where will draft versions of documents be kept
who will be responsible for auditing the output versus the proposal template
what happens to the resources which become the conceptual product
is there a round of feedback/editing which needs to happen with a smaller piece of the team before this is considered final
what will be the primary communication methods

In each case, through each role and team contributing to this project, the idea of workflow isn’t just a matter of “what kind of work needs to happen between them for the end product,” but also, what kind of work needs to happen within those individual members in order to flow up to that project team’s output in the most seamless manner. Differences in applications might lead to reduced fidelity from one team to another. Differences in availability might lead to passive/indirect communication journals which fail to convey some necessary tone.

This makes workflow less a religion and more a sacrament. It is a descriptor of what should probably already be happening. Yet, when codified, creates the accessible means for those outside of the team or process to best understand why success happened or didn’t. Challenge for many folks is that they don’t know what that structure looks like. Their work is dependent on another, but they don’t know what questions to ask in order to see what’s on the other side of the fence or garage door. And then when things are created, and you just see the output, you don’t realize the depth of work which went into this. It seemed seamless due to the time and quality met, but there’s a depth to which only the workflow (as codified) would be able to explain.

Not to say that documentation is everything. But, when there’s some kind of workflow involved, there has to be a record of the process. That is, if your process is actually contributing to the positive outcomes for the projects you are setting before yourselves.

The Appendage Conundrum

Mon, 02 Jul 2018 13:39:00 -0400

As we pulled up to the mall, Steve felt there was something he’d show me. Little did he know, I was going to use this context to show him what he didn’t understand about mobile. We walked into the mall and proceeded to stores he was familiar with. There were a few companies to which he wanted to check out due to the project we were working on. His mindset was that the TV screens were the important interface for this effort.

I had other ideas. We left the stores and headed to the food court. I asked him to look around at the people around us. There were parents with children, groups of teens, seniors, and several others. Then I asked him to look at what they were doing. He said, “they aren’t even looking at each other. They are looking at those glowing rectangles. They can’t get away from their appendages!”

There’s something we can all acknowledge about mobile devices. They are more or less hard to pull away from their owners. They are an arm, eyes, and sometimes even legs — depending on the person and what they are doing at least. Somehow we’ve adapted so fast to these minaturaized calculation machines that they have become a part of whom we are. And par the course, previous generations have the perspective that this is unnatural. But, is it?

We are creatures who embed our world around us. Probably not too different from spiders, we seem to have a mind and actions which work outside of our physical bodies. More than just accounting for what is spiritual, we use our tools and the connections between them to embed ourselves into the world around us. There’s a different language between generations with this. Previous generations might build the blocks, but its successive generations which transform those blocks into streams of consciousness which (many times) were never imagined before.

Hence the challenge. We don’t always understand what it means to be fully embedded into this connected space. Language like “artificial intelligence,” “mixed reality,” and “online” are transitional terms. An acceptance of the appendage, but not quite the invisibility of using it. We design these processes, these tools, against what we can best understand — “talkies” was a similar term — until it becomes natural enough to no longer be considered foreign.

What is the reason for this session? To acknowledge that we don’t know all of the potential paths our imaginations and inventions will create. But, we are excited about them. They do something in us when we see someone using these tools outside of their mind, it looks like magic. It is magic. Because we are taking something outside of ourselves and using it in ways that fit another mind. Its not supposed to be comfortable. It does become natural.

Tools on Deck: Adobe Comp CC

Mon, 25 Jun 2018 08:45:00 -0400

The tools used on Windows and macOS machines just aren’t usable in the same manner on Apple’s iOS devices. That has required some shifts, and has shaped some exposure to some tools in a different light than what they might have been initially marketed towards. Speaking specificity, Adobe Comp CC has become that tool. And yet, it largely goes unnoticed because this type of use is not what you do on a tablet.

Some weeks back, there was a post of a SmartTrip Apple Watch Concept. The screenshot in this post was of Adobe Comp CC, a wireframing and layout application made by Adobe and only available on iOS. This application has been part of the toolshed for a few years as it relates to design work because of the ease it has with fitting into existing Adobe workflows when working with others.

Read more about Using An iPad Pro As A UX Designer

Adobe Comp CC seems like nothing more than a scaled version of the first editions of Adobe’s InDesign product. There’s a means to create a canvas (several templates), and either by drawing the shapes, or using the shape libraries, create layouts and interface concepts. After you’ve made one page/screen, you close that to open another. These can be saved within a project, and all of these projects are saved to your Adobe CC account. That integration is quite helpful — you can create assets within applications like Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. and then simply pull those into your Comp CC project. If you change the component in one of those apps, the change can be adapted into Comp CC’s project easily.

Where Comp CC doesn’t work so well is when doing more complicated interface explorations. Applications such as Axure, Balsmic, and even Adobe’s own XD (for macOS) enable the connection of components and screens inside of a project. You can design a home screen in Comp CC, but to show how it functionally connects to another screen, you’ve got to use another application (on-device, Marvel App; if collaborators are involved, InVision). This gap rears its head quickly when using Comp CC for UI design or UX strategy.

Read UX Journeys” Lessons From What’s Thrown Away

Even still, the quality of what can be produced in Adobe Comp CC is enoug to turn heads and drive towards better decisions on not just the look and feel, but the content which drives/is driven by experiences. Comp CC leaves just enough room to be simple to do design quickly, and takes just enough effort that you’ll pull your design notes (unfortunately in another program also) so that you can answer what the design didn’t.

Could it be better? Definitely. XD for macOS shows what Comp CC on iOS should be. There’s no excuse with the power and direct input interface on an iPad that more couldn’t be done with Comp CC. And yet, that’s part of the challenge with smaller apps like this. Comp CC is powerful enough to build the next great app; its also simple enough to build your flyer/billboard/banner ad. Would be good to see more come from Comp CC for UI work; there’s more than potential here for making great things. Our work has been proof of that.

Read UX Journeys: Unexpected, Yet Better Products

Speak to a interface designer and you will likely not be very far from hearing about products such as Sketch, InVision, and others. There’s something of a fetish the design industry has about its tools. So much so that conversations about what is UX turns quickly into UX is the tools you use. That’s hard to escape when the workstation is an iPad Pro. Yet, the tools to create avenues for the best experiences are only tools. To understand these tools and their canvas helps identify what can and can’t be understood under after the experience event.

Tools and their impacts on creating and understanding experiences is a wide and deep topic. Avanceé promotes theory, process and tools that are easily available. What’s next is up to you.

Exploring ‘Digital Humanism’

Mon, 18 Jun 2018 09:49:00 -0400

There are a few terms worth talking about — or maybe it is just the phrase which needs to find its way beyond the unexplored shores it speaks towards — and that is the term “digital humanism.” It is a subject we will be speaking on for a few months as there’s something brewing in that space towards Avanceé’s offerings and so it makes sense to start to suss out what the term means (at least right now), and where we might see it go from being “unexplored territories” to “way of existing fully.”

In agreement with Dean Bubley, using the term “digital” is a bit troublesome However, it is a bit of a transitional term to use to describe a bit of what’s mean by the phrase digital humanism. Simply put, there’s an acknowledgement that connectivity, communication, and productivity has taken on the nature of calculated (algorithmic) dealings, in addition to spiritual (religious and psychosocial) and physical (senses) definitions. To contextualize this (for the moment) by the augmented nature mobiles have provided many people — there’s some argument to dictate mobile devices and their connective threads have become an augmented body part — seems to get us down the line that being digitally augmented adds something (or takes something away) from what we understand as humanity.

And yet the second part of this term might be all the more troublesome. Humansim or being humane or what does it mean to be human is as much a philosophical question as it is an egotistical one. For decades, it was taught that humans were the only animals with structured language, yet this has been found in animals from crows, to dolphins, to bacteria. It has been assumed that the distinction to humanity was spirituality, however elephants and other animals which bury and morn over their dead seem to also share this perspective and similar traits. We talk about our ability to embed our mind into the environment around us through the making of tools and shaping of our environment, yet there are octups who make tools and shape reefs, birds who create hammers and drills, and even a virus which creates a drill out of materials within a cell in order to pierce DNA strands. Suffice to say, defining humanity by what we do seems to be a tenuous place in which to define what we are.

So then, what does it mean to be human? And does being augmented by silicon and electricity add to or take away from this defintion? Without clarity on the latter, the adjective before seems in need of a better anchor. We seem to mean digital as meaning powered by non-analog computing systems and processes. We want it to mean being in and around Internet and web-like services with some sense of fluidity. We say it in the context of, “don’t give me paper and make me send it by postage, but use a form and relational database and relationships between your switchboard and mine to say hello.” To be digital seems to want to mean, a process of letting sand and electricity augment whatever it is I am doing. And yet, to be human goes well beyond what “I” am doing.

This will be explored a good bit further in future pieces; but to start here with a term (digital humanism) and let Avanceé’s content and practices shape what we mean in using this term seems a healthy aim forward. From here, well, that’s to just be found when we get there.

Notes As Art

Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:10:00 -0400

As has been the case for the past few weeks, the top of the week has been regarded as the space for the week’s long-form piece. It makes sense to put the heavier items at the top of the week where there could be additional contemplation or discussion while also allowing for the work of the past to shift the present and future accordingly.

This week’s long-form will be a bit different as we’ll link to a contributed piece posted last week at the website Painfully Hopeful. Allowing for something a bit softer than the usual tech and philosophy-heavy items, this is a piece talking in a bit more detail about some of what goes into the synthesis of ideas and products — that is, talking about note taking, specifically the style called sketchnotes.

Here’s a snippet of that article:

I’ve been sketching on my notes for as long as I can remember (margins, back of pages, back of copy books, etc.). But it was with the 1st generation iPad that took off in a different direction. I purchased my first iPad about a month after the it’s introduction, and then took several months to play with various note apps. While I settled on Evernote, which I’d already been using, I wanted to push things a bit further when drawing connecting lines, graphs, or inserting images were part of the process. Penultimate became my notebook app of choice, later followed by Tactilis (a favorite, and recently released anew). Yet, it was with Adobe Ideas my story of “Notes As Art” transformed into more than just doodles.

Check out the rest of Taking Notes Part 3: Notes As Art at Painfully Hopeful and then get in touch if you notice some symmmetry between this personality of taking notes might enable you or your teams to better adjust and address their present and future activities.

Experience Last

Mon, 04 Jun 2018 11:17:00 -0400

The project is well-past the kickoff, and it feels as if there are no other successes to be pulled. The pace of development seems to have slowed. The stakeholders are getting ancy. What seemed like the right solution months ago now seems so far from the truth of how they will use it. And yet, the budget says it must persist. There are calls to trim the team and go “lean” in both focus and resources. Then someone asks, “so how will we evaluate the experience of this once we’ve released it?”

The question seems obvious but the truth is that it was never considered. The project wasn’t started out of impulse. There was a recognized gap in performance and productivity and this was the best route provided to executives as the way forward. Cursory conversations were had with those who’d been in those roles but have moved forward to others to validate the solution. On the surface, this was going to be a win-win. And yet, the voice of those who’d be there after the transition, not those who’d be managing the transition but those who’d be implementing it, was missing. Their experience was not willingly dismissed, but they had little clue of how the business ran above their work. It was decided to bring them in closer to the release. At that point, their feedback would capture what was missed.

A user experience (UX) practioner was consulted. They were queried as to what might be some gaps they have missed — what might be some better ways to galvanize the project to its expected end? Where might the project find some of the solutions to the issues we think might show up in performance, adoption, or training?

The UX practioner looks on. Then gets to work. Yet internally hangs their head. These questions would have been easier to address if they were consulted earlier in the project. The experience of doing and using the product seems to have been the last thing considered — and is only now coming to a head because other levers have been pulled to no success. So the UX practioner asks:

“What do your users think of this change? How has their feedback shaped the project to date? And where are they in our review sessions?”

A realization hits the project manager and product owner, “why did we consider the user experience last?”

Educating Shaping Working

Mon, 28 May 2018 10:26:00 -0400

Though the roster took up to 12 students, there were only a half-dozen registered for the class. However, only one showed, and now, 15 minutes after the class was supposed to start, a decision needed to be made: cancel the class, or run another 1-on-1. The student decided to do the 1-on-1, they needed the lessons for the upcoming quarterly reports. Anything to understand how this application worked better would help at this point, they were overwhelmed. And so, with the understanding of their specific job needs, we did the class.

The class took only half the time since there was just one student. Their expectations for what they’d get out of the class was over and above their initial thoughts according to the evaluation afterwards. “How can a student’s expectations shape a better outcome,” I was left to wonder. Personalized classes, apprenticeships, professional mentoring, and even smaller instruction cycles can improve retention of materials taught — but what’s transferred (transformative) is harder to pin down. Yet, I still see that former student when go back to visit that enterprise. They are happy to state again and again how grateful they were for the class, and how much they still use to this day. Over a year since that modified class, education reshaped their work.

There’s something about consistent, relevant, and challenging education which supports and shapes work. Now, there are many who will speak better on the topic (for example notes from this interview are worth re-reading. But, we can state, there’s a measurable difference in the kind of education which just signals we are fit to work, and the education which enables us to shape our work. In the story above, the former was necessary — signaling was needed because some measure of the jobs-to-be-done were not being done. The latter was the better affect of the educational expereince. A set of behaviors and tools were customized for a specific type of work, then made reproducible such that it could continue to shape the work long after the initial educating was done. A ripple effect… or more like ripples which shape.

In thinking and putting forth Avanceé as a different metric towards what work looks like, it is these kinds of ripples we look for. Not so much to see a report later of favorable design, better opportunities, or even smart behaviors in a system or process. But, there’s something that’s more core to being human/humane when people are given a means to shape their reality. To grant agency, even when you are working for someone else, is a kind of education many could get behind.

The Features Trap

Mon, 21 May 2018 10:59:00 -0400

Asking for features but wanting better methods

For a number of years, SharePoint had been a part of the toolkit for project teams. Our experience in working with these teams has given a few lessons towards what is understood about features, and what isn’t undertood about behaviors. And yet, across more than a decade, there seems to have been little movement towards reconciling these. Features — as it relates to what teams understand about their tools — can very much be a trap instead of a help.

Our work with teams centers on helping them understand better what they want to do, and what about the software packages they might perfer helps them to get there. To that end, we spend a bit more time getting to know teams, their challenges, and the opportunities they’d like to feature, rather than getting to know every nook and wrinkle of the software tools. This seems a bit anthetical towards the signaling certification, CPE credits, licensing, and even “we want to do it like them” ethos of knowledge work; yet, this has been found to give the best return on teaching, not just return on investment.

Yet, there’s a place in each of those conversations where the topic turns to features. And it is here where its heard how some one is using this thing differently (or the “let me pull up this site and show you what I mean”). What’s being asked for is the method. The language being used is all about features.

The challenge for Avanceé is to clearly point our where these expectations might lie and make a clear distinction between the features which enable what looks like a pleasing method, and the behaviors which backend that method into profitable processes. This means if we are talking about reporting, and your focus is on making Excel a better used tool, that we will be asking questions about what you do with reports, what kinds of decisions do those reports help you make, and what about other tools and behaviors which get to those decision points faster or richer might have been missed. It might mean wanting automated processes, but taking a detailed look at communication practices between teams/team members, and what the entrance of automation might add or take away.

The question of any tools is rarely about the features it offers; its more about methods of work — what it does and doesn’t facilitate. To steer clear of the features trap grants the ability to concentrate on the better part of the process equation. That better part, enables your best parts.

From Mundane to Tactile

Tue, 15 May 2018 21:29:00 -0400

A long day where you move about within about a 25ft radius yet still travel across continents, trade information, and engage various groups of people who use information technology to do mundane and wonderful things. This has been a pretty consistent piece of the story which has led to Avanceé and seems like an area most ripe for thinking a bit outside of the box.

On the same day of these, Microsoft announces its Surface Hub 2 another gesture towards the collaborative whiteboard which connects to people in open spaces, and uses a combination of touch, gesture, and camera-based input schemes for interfacing with content. A fan of such devices, its almost a shame these aren’t used more often — smartboards get a bad rap in educational settings, the Surface Table was best seen in Vegas, and so on. We seem to like the idea of large, public interfaces in concept, but something in the execution (or price, or administration) has kept them on the countertop rather than on the table with the main course of computing.

Perhaps there’s something to be said about touching, about being more tactile than screens can offer?

In a past project, we used a combination of the Layar AR system, QR codes, several other pieces of linked media, and a business card to trigger experiences which extended touch. Being in the time period not long after the introduction of the iPhone, such experiments weren’t unfamiliar to some, but they were eye-opening to many. Why would someone take the common practice of passing a business card, and overload it with content that needed a magic wand (read: a mobile with a camera) to enable? And then why would this be pushed further (building webpages to act like business cards, building websites hosted on mobiles, building entire courses and their materials from said mobiles, etc.). For all the connectivity that being digital offers, we often just do the mundane thing until we see there’s another way to touch the world around us.

A recent project where we reinvented the web presence of a compay offers a chance to re-explore this idea of being tactile. Passing business cards, having sales documentation, mailing lists, etc. are the mundane activities which have high energy but a very low rate of return. The experience is all about the touchpoint — being tactile and memorable — yet the behaviors do everything they can do keep touch from happening. What if we took those materials and removed them? What if we took the thing we want to sell and make it the action we did, instead of the action we talked to? What if communication and its behaviors were intentionally tactile, not passive? What would be mundane and that?

Living in A Future Present

Tue, 01 May 2018 09:14:00 -0400

The reflection starts in using augmented memories. What was an an enjoyable time of food, drinks, and dancing is now nothing more than a hyperlink and several siloed conversations to be pulled upon until it fades from the collective consciousness, or until it’s made more permanent thru the positive or negative celebrity of another trope. This is life in this augmented age.

When looking at the technologies in use, we have a nearly-theological viewpoint of them: either we use them becuase they enable us to embrace a view of ourselves we otherwise couldn’t, or we don’t use them because to do so would portend some kind of denial of agency. Neither is untrue. In fact, both seem to be true at the same time. It merely depends on what might be our motivation at the time. As fleeting as such motivations are, we end up flopping between, or maybe gliding precariously to one end or the other. Never really knowng which end is true, until something changes our motivations through some transfer of value.

It is in this philosophical state to wonder about the devices and services we use. Are they merely augmenting senses which have fallen into dis-use? We don’t hear as well and so there are hearing aids. We don’t see as well, so comes corrective lenses in fashionable frames — this is important, we have a disability but want to remain on the side of reputation where that disability is a mark of respect, not of scorn. Or, perhaps we have orthopedics, orthodontics, or mark our workspace with ergonomic bumps and markers so that we ensure some level of the appropriate signaling, along with making sure we achieve some agreed to level of productivity or performance. These are merely augmentations to senses right?

Yet, it seems the wave of activity, or at least the increasingly loud tones of conversations, falls towards the technologies which speak to memory and perception. We don’t use the camera in order to see what we could not, we use it in order to signal that we were a part of something along with others, or to remember an artifact by context, or to imbue some matter of importance to another. We have listening devices to fall away into states of meditation whether to be productive or quiet ourselves — but do so against the framing of “these series of sounds will soothe and allow me to flow.” These are the parts of technologies which don’t augment so much as they reinforce. They reinforce our moods, our modes, and even our biases. Neither wrong nor right, they do hammer home a point — the moment isn’t enough, you’ve got to be able to retrieve it in order for its value to be taken in full.

While editing, there was a thought which arose from a current read:

The near-future of work is to be productive, with a knowledge of one state of wellness, in order to increase the value of and impacts of unique interested tools and behaviors

Productivity is theology of getting more out of a moment’s investment than what was put into it. The tools of productivity enable us to retreat towards what should have stood in memory, or enhance a particular set of senses for an omnipotent creation-ing. The way work seems to be going, we seem to at one point want to move from the frail methods and products of memory towards sensory-augmentation, and at the same time fear productivity as we’ve remembered it to be shaped by more than the KPIs of well-heeded management.

As Snap Spectacles find their way into use beyond eye protection and event capturing, there’s a sense that using them portends a different type of future. One which can just barely be grasped about during this present — yet its just far enough away to feel like something we might never reach. Our eyes will become more than input controls. Our behaviors will be more than responding to what we’ve seen. We just might have a future-present where it matters more that we use all of our senses, than we display modes that we even had them.

Move Fast and Shape Things

Fri, 27 Apr 2018 09:23:00 -0400

The other week, we looked back as to what’s been published so far, and there has really been a decent amount of content. There’s certainly a number of pieces where we are feeling our way to what kind of content is best for this platform. And at the same time, the linking of items creates avenues for attention perhaps not all that different from the other waves of conversation happening. There might be better ways to canvas the space that design and process begets. We’ll figure that out… but not because we will do what’s been done before.

Identity and Instinctive Travels

Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:24:00 -0400

What happens to fall inside or outside of the work to be done might be considered a distraction. As part of building a discipline of activity to define Avanceé and its market value, there’s is a bit of attention given at this stage to following instinct, not just process. Process is not pushed aside, but it is empowered by following the shades of what isn’t so easily defined.

A conversation about workspaces and cadence turns into a conversation on the nature of names, etymologies, and ancestry. Remarked during the conversation, is talking “about ancestry a distraction,” follows within this framing that work must follow some discipline and process. That is, there is work to be done because there’s a deadline which is accountable to it. And yet, the distraction and context-shift was allowed and encouraged. What could be found going down the route of looking at the history of a first name, its connections to colonization, and the affects of such a backward’s facing path on the conversant’s current work?

Anything? Nothing? Everything?

We don’t know what exists on the other side of these travels until we take the moments outside of them to explore, make notes, and then look for the opportunities to deliver something of tangible value — whether in that conversation or in future products.

Stripe talks about an internal product used to enable their company to connect to one another. Was making it a distraction? Probably. Did making it emphasize some things and diminish others as it relates to product, culture, and business? Probably. Was it the right thing to do — it’s likely, as they grow larger (over the 150 persons currently) this would become harder to manage and need to be replaced with a system designed from the outside for a larger company? Probably. And yet, what’s won by following their instinct here is a connective tissue between coworkers across departments which enables the best meat of their work to come forth. Doesn’t mean the internal tool is perfect, nor that the distraction was without several losses in attention towards other areas. It does mean the distraction revealed something in Stripe that was easier to define once it was travelled.

Developing a discipline around what might be a distraction is helpful in allowing you to make the right responses to it. Certainly, there are distractions which invite the wrong kind of friction to a team, project, or company. These should be avoided, or at least planned-for-response as they arise. But, some travels are less predictable, less able to be defined by anything more than being open to seeing old problems with different eyes. What comes from those travels can only be defined clearly once the road has been given some space to get in between your toes.

Twitter Posting Gone Awry

Sat, 21 Apr 2018 13:02:00 -0400

Now that’s interesting. For some reason, posting to Twitter stopped happening a few days ago. It looks like cross-posting wasn’t turned on, but don’t remember turning it on as items were hitting Twitter auto-magically… 🤔

For items to hit both the @microblog timeline and Twitter is somewhat necessary (for now). Will need to investigate this before next week’s thoughts hit the stream.

Current vs Currents

Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:22:00 -0400

Composing this as the start of yet another Excel class is about to begin. The framing is simple — to get a company of people who do various transformations and reporting with data to have the same floor — yet the feeling is not one where there has been much movement. An outsider teaching others how to use their tooling to do some aspect of their work feels like a bit of greaseing the wheel for a train which will never be moved forward. And yet, here again, there’s a sense of the current activity not exactly lining up with the currents of what it means to work.

This isn’t abnormal when some kind of paradigm shift is present. The current tools, methods, and perceptions which have led to a paradigm shift are certainly entrenched to continue life as it is. There’s a comfort and balance with understanding what might be able to work, what doesn’t work, and wrapping up those tools and methods around these perceptions. This is how work gets done. Right up until it becomes a limiter to the outcomes which made that work necessary.

The currents at play in the workspace/workplace include machine learning-infused tools, empathy and clarity, equity and equality, and a healthy does of boundaries/margin. We notice these things, but don’t always go about the work of changing how we work because of them. And this is a problem, at some point, the work either enables us to stay current, or moves us forward with the currents towards the next islands of opportunity and advancement. Rarely does the work enable both.

It is probably clear from the initial context this work sounds merely operational, not creative/production-focused. Yet, bending into just that perspective would not be too wise. Every space which has been touched by some aspect of connectivity or digitization is under the threat of the current work not allowing the current workers to flow with the current rate of change. We want to remain employed, yet gain the benefits of higher productivity per person. We want feelings of association and neighborhood-ness to broker what’s authentic, but also the constraints of safety, security, privacy, and agency. The currency of our age is changing, and its not really about keeping folks current as much as it is helping them utilize a suitable-enough oar so they could navigate where change might be directing them.

Avanceé responds to this by enabling those in this Excel class to not thing about “how do I do my job” but rather, “what are the things this tool enables my job to do better.” We have a focus on asking a better question of our tools, methods, and processes so that our perspective towards responding to change enables us to address the current needs, while also skating to where the puck will be. This is what it means to be “Avanceé” — being just outside of the box enough to see and create the next best responses. Is this something you and your team/organization could use help stepping through? If so, get in touch and let’s use those oars together.

Wavelength

Fri, 13 Apr 2018 14:44:00 -0400

Totally late on this (as usual), but it looks like there’s a podcast client created by Micro.Blog’s inventor

Wavelength

Been thinking about doing a podcast alongside Avanceé (was looking at Anchor.fm) but this would be better for too many reasons. Not sure yet, but…

Thought

Fri, 13 Apr 2018 11:01:00 -0400

Spent the week developing a Twitter/Medium strategy for a group.

Sketching the blueprint was good for this moment; but the blueprint is only 25% of the journey. Getting folks to append/change their activities is the scripting of what’s next.

Cutting New Roads

Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:17:00 -0400

Somewhere in the weeds, or maybe beyond the bushes with the hard bristles and leaves, is that thing you and your team have been looking for. This isn’t a prophecy saying that you are looking; nor is it an inevitability you will be there when the rest of your team finds it. This is just an acknowledgement that the space between current state and ideal state isn’t exactly a road which has been paved before. If this thing you are pursuing is indeed worth what you dream it is, then you will cut the road there - not follow it.

This is what makes innovation more or less difficult - and definitely not the normal course of affairs. In our humanity, we don’t like a certain type of friction. We like things to be easier. Shoot - Avanceé has done a decent job directing current and potential clients towards making work easier by implementing automated workflows in spaces. This isn’t abnormal to want for something great to come with a minimal amount of effort. However, its untrue to see simplicity and efficiency within the framing of easier. Simplicity and efficiency, that thing in which your ideal state is realized, is more like being on a road you are cutting anew.

In one of our prospective projects, cutting a new road looks like a new integration of software, a CNC milling machine, and an exponentially growing body of workers. Sure, there are companies which have managed this shift. And certainly some of those with some similar elements to this one. However, they aren’t this company. They aren’t this body of people. And certainly, they don’t have the shape of market this one has. So what happens here is a new road cut. There will be tools and methods pulled from similar frames. The redesign of consumer, user, business and technical frames will be different. And it should be. It will also be full of thorns. Because this road isn’t one they can see the end of by rising higher (one might argue that being higher in the org might actually blind them to the eventual destination).

So then what? Do you pull back towards what’s been comfortable? Or, do you embrace what’s on the other side of those weeds and thickets - pushing past the eventual cuts and blossoms to what’s on the other side of this forest? We think you will. We don’t just think so, but we will be there with you figuring out the shape of the road we are making and the path being left for others. Making work easier will happen. Making work valuable is part of the outcomes. Cutting that road is just a part of what it takes to go beyond where you are right now.

The way work looks going forward will require looking at a lot of this differently. That’s going to be a different road of its own also. And yet, those who see something different will cut it. Others will find those roads and invent their own spaces alongside it.

Image via Think Digital Travel’s Twitter of Gerd Leonhard’s latest talk.

Convo On Creating New Textiles

Thu, 05 Apr 2018 16:37:00 -0400

trying something where original “tweets” happen here versus on Twitter first

Spoke w/a woman the other day who takes scrap clothing and turns them into new materials, new textiles. She didn’t like the waste, and her artistic leanings took over.

Interesting note from convo: how her craft was shaped by a New England culture/attitude but Appalachian craft & values. How she sees sustainable stuff is in a shape rarely heard/seen. What didn’t work out with textile folks in the region screams of disruption coming from places you didn’t see coming.

Paying Attention

Tue, 03 Apr 2018 10:29:00 -0400

Yesterday, spent some time on an upcoming podcast and one of the questions asked was about what new technologies or perspectives are being paid attention to. These are great questions because they don’t just talk about someone’s ability to lead, but also their ability to bridge where they might be leading with where others might be now.

One lens of this answer was derived from the recently finished Homo Deus. The popular and challenging reads of the day will usually offer a lens into some of the executive or dinner-time discussions. And while this book leaves a lot of conversation topics to be had - its what it asks of its readers to consider and direct which lands at a clearer question, “are you paying attention?”

Another piece to answering the question of technologies and perspectives being paid attention to was the focus on health and wellness tracking. It would seem to be a normative thing now for Fitbit and Apple Watch devices to be worn, and their metrics a part of the daily conversation. And certainly, those who run, swim, and cycle endear themselves to Strava, Garmin, Polar, and more in order to quantify the effects of activity and recovery. The answered perspective was to call attention to what you can see. The axiom in the workplace is that you can’t change what you don’t measure. And this is true with wellness. Whether or not it takes a connected device is another context. But, the message is again clear: are you paying attention (to what your body is saying).

The last piece of that answer was a curveball. On the surface, many will hear the response “pay attention to voice-led computing” and stop at what’s happening with Alexa, Siri, and smart speakers. However, if one listened closer, the response was found later - voice-led computing interfaces will change how we author other experiences. Whether it is because of lower friction (mind to product), different tools, or the permissioned controllers (external networked tools versus personal-networked tools), using one’s voice can and will reset the narrative in the same way new camera techniques caused cinematography to advance well beyond imagination in the early 1900s and again in the 1930s. Paying attention to the crawling of new tools and methods can often land within interpretations which had never been considered.

So what might you be paying attention to? Or rather, have you neglected paying attention because of the amount of stimuli thrown your direction? Your ability to lead, direct, facilitate, and serve land at the abilities you have to pay attention to the valuable things; and take the steps towards what realities they might create.

Simple Image, Simple Focuses

Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:22:00 -0400

It has been almost four months since starting Avanceé and there’s always this tension that it can be refined a bit more, that there’s something a bit better about it which can be pulled forward so that it creates as much value as it is envisioned to. And then you see those who have done similar and how you aren’t racing anyone - nor are you yet anywhere near the destination…

There were a few other thoughts in mind for this week’s post, but I think Ben Thompson’s announcement of the five year anniversary and 4.0 iteration of Stratechery speaks to exactly what needs to happen not just with Avanceé, but with our lives, projects, and products in general. Its not about covering what others do, nor is it about being your own isolated stream. But, there are those of us who are looking for a different kind of perspective, a nuanced approach to focusing on what matters, and its not going to necessarily be found in the commons. It would be found in the crevices, on the open waters, and usually, persistently striving for its own voice in the abyss.

In a tweet some days ago, we said:

There’s something about the future that’s more than just seen, it’s felt. Thing is, when you feel it, that means the future is already here. Design is one part enabling others to use all of their senses. Not just the ones w/which they see.

There’s something impressive upon such reflections. Not that Avanceé has some special kind of product or power to uncover anything. We are purposeful about thinking just outside of the box that we are feeling around towards things which don’t register in the commons. They won’t. As a matter of relationship though, we look to translate those into what is valuable. In this we create a wider and deeper sea upon which ships travel.

Perhaps Avanceé will imprint something different. Perhaps not. But, in passing a ship (Stratechery) which has been in these seas for a while, this is a great moment to simplify focuses, do what we aim to do, and set the pace for the moments which await.

Opining on the Value of Metrics

Tue, 20 Mar 2018 10:24:00 -0400

You can’t improve what you don’t measure

In a recent conversation with an executive director of a youth-reaching program, we talked about developing applets (small apps) and process changes which enabled one mentor to spend less time working on the admin tasks of mentoring and more working towards the direct “jobs to be done” of seeing direct correlation between activity and outputs. The director’s face said more than any of the words that remained within that vein of the conversation. It wasn’t just the attention to something innovative already wished for on the organization level, but that it was done such that understing the immediate value of what was and wasn’t being tracked made the solution ideal.

We shouldn’t be surprised by such moments. At every stop, there’s something of a “working yourself out of a job” to each role. This focus comes one from an innate ability to find new challenges in various roles. And also the leverage brought from various disciplines into those roles - focuses to which academic and professional professions are starting to recognize are not as siloed as they’d been taught and compensated.

These applets and process tweaks are great, but what’s the point? We can admit to doing them to keep from dealing with finite details of processes or communications which the tools and behaviors of the age have likely already addressed. Successes here have pointed towards items being opened to a much larger audience and the types of organizational changes end up rippling into other spaces. But if you are similar to us here; these are largely personal pieces. It might reflect more as selfishness, but no one aims to improve another’s job unless it makes their job much easier first.

Innovation Through Refining Internal Processes at YMCA of Greater Charlotte - Slideshare

How to decide what to do and not do? Look at friction points. Where are the gaps in operational or behavioral items where a rethink has been needed, but either resources or capacity weren’t there. Can you take some off-the-shelf items and architect something differently enough that the friction and efforts in existing methods are shown to hide opportunities? Are you intuitive to simply guess? Its never an accident when an off-the-wall guess might take you down some interesting roads. Many times, the decision to just do it leads to lessons which might not get employed until tools, technologies, or behaviors evolve. That’s an ok return on the investment - though not so appealing to patience, budgets, or maybe even ther role itself.

Mobile Ministry Magazine Hosted Using Nokia’s Mobile Web Server (PDF)_

What kinds of metrics are pulled from these experiments then? Totally depends on the engagement. In one of the experiments, the question about the length of time spent on a program was the product of someone’s best guess. A designed project tracker didn’t just show the time-engaged on the project, but how often the project manager updated the tracker (fuller engagement), what resources were developed (centralized location versus email threads), and that project in relation to all others (leading to some open budget convos amongst other things). A time logging applet turns into a multi-calendar, invoice-generating, and report creating system. The information gleaned from such works isn’t always an accidental find. The numbers are always there - exploring their value takes a different kind of effort.

That effort is the value of metrics. On one end, you can go down the line, but if you aren’t validating the approach, or even the energy expended, then whatever metrics you’ve been holding towards means little to nothing. If you don’t take the chance to explore, then you won’t know if the metrics you are using are all together valid at all. In the noted experiments, we found holes in a process which were better addressed by going outside of existing frameworks to attempt to answer. This was innovative, but only because the the normative behavior made clear there was no other way to define what success looked like. We had to go outside of the normative in order to see there were better metrics, and better value to be pulled into the business, technical, and customer experience.

A company can hire for skills, but cannot hire for innovation (to steal a recent tweet-quote). Innovation’s value comes from an effort towards some ideal state. What is that ideal state? Is that ideal state measurable today, or will something new need to be invented in order to get there. Are you maturing the capacity to do work differently? Or, are you still working out the tasks to be done so that getting to the “jobs to be done” actually happens and your product/process is validated?

Ask these kinds of questions. Explore down these roads. And then see what about metrics matter, and what you are actually doing to get there.

Methods and Tools of Work

Tue, 13 Mar 2018 21:17:00 -0400

Over the weekend, spent a bit of time diving into the work of service design during the Global Service Jam. There’s something pretty exciting about taking the expanse of what you know, adding a good bit of what you don’t, and mixing it with people you just met for a problem to be clearly defined in 48 hours. The activity within the Global Service Jam isn’t much different than most other work, its the intensity on figuring things out without the friction of tools, meetings, and even in-applicable research to get in the way. This isn’t different, yet it is. The methods and tools of work can and do transform greatly in the face of or in the absence of friction.

Some friction is good. We find that being the case when our automobiles don’t slide off the road. Some friction isn’t - if you’ve ever pulled a hamstring you’ll get this point also. Friction is present though. The methods of motion and emotion transpose us from one state to another, mostly unwillingly. And then we do move. And whatever the intention behind what created the movement, it quickly turns into the potential of something better, different, worse, or in need of redefinition.

The tools we use to enable our potential clients to see what life looks like outside of the box seeks to make the best use of this friction. Sometimes, this means we spend more time with a slow push towards a galvanizing revelation. Other times, this is a quiet, quick, and presumptive strike against a point not yet made, demonstrating both the ability to see forward, and end the potential of an excuse to drive away the energy to overcome friction. Our product, if you want to call it a product, is merely the recognition of the various types of friction which inhibit progress. Doesn’t mean we are right, it only means we are faster to reduce the negative impacts of friction to remain than you might be in your friction to remain.

In a response to a Medium post on the applications/services interaction designers will have to fight through during 2018 and the near future, we postulate if the tools discussion is the wrong kind of friction. Most of the issues designers seem to address are the friction of communicating process and value. The tools used should indeed be made for the specific roles of designing, prototyping, and handing off/building; yet, if we stay within the world of those roles while the work outside of it changes itself to the age, are those tools even valid? Are the roles merely behaviors which point towards different, and likely evolving outside of the box, methods and tools of work? Not in a way which can be defined now. But, perhaps in a way in which an new world will be discovered, and the voices within that new world will better describe what it is we only do now by intuition.

Our goals aren’t to replace your decision making. Avanceé merely augments your tools and practices with a view deliberaly outside of the framework that’s considered normal. Normative behaviors are meant to be what they are - we are designing a way to go beyond them to other valuable expressions of work. The methods and tools for this journey exist more as “mind” and less as “hammer.”

The Transition of Change

Tue, 06 Mar 2018 13:11:00 -0400

Caught in that time period right between the cold of winter that remains on your memory until the rest of the year, and the spring which brings the blossoming and rains of a different kind. Such a period often has us instinctively ask and push for change. What we think change is going to produce isn’t often what happens. There are several elements at stake, most of which are not predictable by any other measure other than we put the work in and now we expect a result. This is normal. However, change is normal, our prediction of what it will merit us is only a guess until metrics come back to confirm or discount our thoughts.

We find that advancing groups beyond their perceptions are similar to this description of change. We are invited to an engagement becuase its clear that the way work had been done previously is no longer sufficient. However, what that change entails, or what it will create, is only a guess until it happens. We carry a few metrics towards this; however our approach is really more instinctive than it is instructive. When you feel something works or doesn’t work, is it becuase of the culture of your team or processes? Is it based on what you can measure, or is it based on what you’ve always done? Are there questions worth diving into the depths for? Or, is your product inherently competitive becuase its formations came from someone else’s expectations, not your own? These aren’t wrong questions, and the responses are both data and emotion. This is what change opens us up towards.

At the same time, this time of year motions us to be care of false warmth. False senses of prosperity and acclaim before their time. We’ve seen the trees which have taken a few warm days in the middle of February and given allergy sufferers an early does of pain. And yet, those trees jumped too far ahead. The next cold snap didn’t just break those branches on which the blossoms happened, at the next change of season, that plant was too tired from fighting to keep itself alive and therefore its early-beauty could not be maintained. It knew there was something good within it, but it jumped too early, rather than waiting until the fullness of the season’s change.

There’s language of all kinds to speak towards change. Each religion, each philosophy, and even a number of musicians have given tempo, pace, and lyric to change. Managing that change though is one part managing your own expectations, and another part being determined enough to maintain tempo, pace, and patience. You change too fast and you risk becoming the model for the next leader. You change too slow, and you’ll become subject to the change.

Reflections Forward

Tue, 20 Feb 2018 11:13:00 -0400

Pausing from developing a prototype to think and ruminate a bit about the point of the actions we do forward. Not so much there’s a change happening with Avanceé - only that it makes sense to continue to look at goals and actions and then refine or reset where necessary.

Some years ago, we were present for a smart cities conference in The Hague (Netherlands). There, Avanceé’s founder gave a keynote titled “Respond.Shift.Present.Invoke.” In a short summary, the perspective was to make sure that we aren’t forgetting that people are and will always be the drivers of what makes smart cities worth the investment and curation. A slingshot back into this from an article at The Atlantic (Stop Saying Smart Cities) causes us to gather alongside this purpose to “go outside of the box” and mine what actually happens and for whom does it happen.

As that article so wisely details, you cannot have a smart city without also having its consequences. And such is the case with anything deemed innovation in behavior, practice, or product. Because these are driven by organisms, there’s always going to be change. Some of that change might very well come at the behest of a well-funded or well-noted stakeholder. However, the depth of that change, the depth of the transformations, come when the character of those impacted begin to take on that change. There is a saying which goes something like, “its not the first person to do something who is the leader, but its the one who follows that person. That’s the one who is regarded as leading and pioneering the effort.”

Such is the case here. We aren’t sure what the outputs or intentions of all of the work that Avanceé will put itself towards. What is clear though is that the leading and prodding foraward by us will cause others to see and take up the baton and run the race towards the character of their contexts. Avanceé will have products, will instigate new behaviors, etc., but the meat of its impact may very well happen well outside of the purview of our reach. It will be others which drive the change… we have to be ok with being vital for the spark, but maybe nameless on the medal.

That’s a hard place for any company to realize. Harder still to continue to communicate what the value is, when we are saying as much here - the value of Avanceé’s approach is not what we bring, but how you are carrying it forward when we have completed our engagement. While that challenge for us means making every effort to communicate effectively, for you that might mean changing your perspective from “us” being the smarter party, to “you” being the actual agent of change.

Design Is More than What You See

Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:03:00 -0400

Feels weird to say this, but there seems to be something of a blind spot when it comes to the design industry. A vast majority of the conversation centers around what’s seen. And therefore technology and tools aren’t far behind. We talk about layers, button states, and even layout placements in terms of what’s seen. Yet, little to no attention is paid to the other senses.

We notice that little-to-no attention when we look at devices like the Apple Watch. Its really a nice piece of hardware, but for all that it can do towards hearing you, the response more often than not needs to be seen and/or tapped on the user’s end. And don’t let your action be something that needs to continue on the iPhone - then you’ve got to not only tap a button to acknowledge the shift, and then (non-verbally) instigate whatever the action was again on your iPhone. Its all visual (nevermind the rest of not respecting contexts).

This bears its head a bit more with connected speakers like Google Home and Amazon’s Echo. Now, these are voice-led platforms, yet still there’s a reliance on visuals for the initial setup, and even the building of the experiences. These are certainly on their way to being voice-first - but until the authoring tools are also held in the same sensory space as the consume/productvity actions, designing for voice-first will also land in the palette of what’s seen.

I find the focus dedicated accessibility professionals and automotive designers pay to non-visuals as being a better place to design from. Not that being visual is the floor of the experience - but adds something to the base experience which enables a better contextual grasp of the moment. Turn signals still do their click; CVTs fake engine rev sounds; haptic feedback for sight sticks. Using sounds and touch (and to the clothing, automotive rental, and food industries: smell) to the design palette opens a door into the kind of immersion which fuels one to knowing they are using something that’s a part of a larger system. That there’s a symmetry and balance happening, and the context was designed to engage (or disengage) their senses towards this.

Stripping the things away you see, can one say many companies have actually designed anything at all? The feel of an Apple Watch is certainly different than a Rolex. But that mechanical sound evokes something that the temperature and weight of the Apple Watch’s chassis cannot (or will not). What happens when you strip away what you can see and lean-in to evoke another sense - something more than sight? Design that meets this question should invite a different kind of attention indeed.

Looking Beyond the Horizon

Wed, 07 Feb 2018 12:24:00 -0400

Generally, we look towards some unidentifable place beyond the horizon to set a goal. Some call it “moonshot” and others call it just reaching beyond the horizon. This isn’t risky. In fact its more or less the safe thing to do for any team or organization. The challenge therefore is easier to take on because there’s a sense of inevitability to the actions that will happen. If you take the small steps, then what comes next is as normal as the sun going up.

What you don’t often hear about are those groups who focus on something which is well beyond the horizon. Focusing on “effectiveness for tomorrow’s after-lunch meeting.” This seems too direct; too detailed; too finite to stroke the creative impulses where curiosity and purpose make sense of an effort. However, its that detail, that specific “getting ready for the thing you can’t predict” where your impulses thrive. It’s in the “I need to make the 10th person to ask me this better” approach where you start to define the kind of practices and approaches which are truly innovative, and lend into something a bit more immediate than “greater numbers will validate our approach.”

This isn’t normal thinking. For Avanceé, its not simply taking the small steps which makes a big impact possible, but focusing on some (sometimes arbitrary) point in that approachable future where you identify a single detail, a single goal. And from there, you aim for the outcome there and there only. Its a focus not for what is risky or impossible, but for what’s focused enough to incite the kind of creativity which makes for making a better calendar for the moments which will come after.

Misplaced Perceptions of User Experience

Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:05:00 -0400

There are many organizations, upon hearing the term “user experience” land on the perception of “finally getting a pleasing product in front of people.” And while the hope is indeed a correct one, the perception of the user experience professional to handle (and be adept) at everything from application development, to marketing, to organizational strategy, to project/product management is one where expectations end up having many fall short of those perceptions - UX eventually finding itself in the bucket of “things we wish we did well but don’t have the time/budget for.”

There’s no need to wonder why that perception goes awry. User experience has too often fallen upon the eyes-only facet of a product’s experience. Does it look “good” to me? Does it follow what “I” understand as what “my” customers need?

Instead, UX ends up being filtered though - and therefore product-fit - out of the inputs of those who build and sell. This shouldn’t be the case. UX done well speaks - emphatically - for the best needs of those who are using the system/services/product. Think of why people use services like Wix - its not that building a website isn’t needed, but the friction for doing so is so much that a well-designed tool fits the perception better - even if that perception means a plateauing of the (perceived) quality of websites.

In order to not misplace one’s perception (with UX and most else), there’s a bit of a reset which needs to happen within industries and those who work in them. Admonish the business for doing the part of getting a product in front of folks (yes). Encourage the techincal components to develop and mature further, wider, and deeper (of course). But don’t lose the equal weight which is to be given to those who use and consume. It should be their ease of use; their lack of unnecessary friction; their security and flexibility to choose which makes your product(s) stand forward. Only then can you say you are stretching towards a positive user experience; and in saying so actually build that which will land in the right places on one’s balance sheet.

Going Beyond Design Thinking

Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:49:00 -0400

Often, we would like to think that doing an analysis, reinvesting in the mission/vision, or even deploying a new technology/tool will allow us to capture some sense of the newness of innovation. We are more or less grasping at straws, looking for a meaning in what we are doing which will ressonate with our core publics better, or will increase the width and depth of what we offer to others. A part of the fractals within such spaces could be called design thinking - an approach to look for and appreciate the design, not just the process or the technology which drives those innovative processes. While design thinking is indeed part of such a toolkit, one must be willing to also go beyond design thinking in order to capture realistic expressions of innovation.

Realistic expressions of innovation - or going outside-of-the-box on purpose - is both the hard data of what does/doesn’t work, as well as the revisualizing of your goals without the legacy of past decisions, tools, or moments on deck. Being able to have one foot in the probable, and the other in the realistic. For example, for one client, it didn’t matter the number of newsletters, events, and flyers if the basics of printing, lighting, and cleanliness were taken care of. Operationally, they needed to reorient towards those smaller points of disciple and function in order to maximize the impacts they wanted to have for their clients. Innovation simply was orienting line workers towards expectations with a task sheet. If the tasks were done, there wasn’t an issue in displaying the rest of the facility.

Designing a usable, and low-training-needed task list was the innovative act. It was out-of-the-box as it stopped using the communication methods which weren’t working. It was out of the box to encourage the extinction of excuses. It was out of the box to count conversations, and give equal weight to those which caused members to join, and visitors to not come back again.

Going beyond design thinking is our mission. But, making your organization’s sense of innovation, purpose, (and eventually) profit, is what we help you design for you. If these are the types of viewpoints needed, get in touch with our founder and we can help you see these realistic expressions of innovation for your company/mission.

Describing Avanceé’s Key Themes

Wed, 17 Jan 2018 00:48:00 -0400

Missed on Tuesday’s big post due to activites & focuses going elsewhere. But here’s a key theme: tools we use shape the way we shape our worlds. Many times, we don’t realize the misapplication of a tool or its resulting behavior until something grevious happens (Hawaii nuclear alert for instance). Other times, we engage in some aspect of sharping our world, but end up needing to bend to tools, methods, or behaviors which have not caught up to us (tweet earlier on voice-augmented artifacts for productivity tools).

We cannot miss the constant evolution our tools provoke towards us. So, while yes it’s correct that we cannot move to every new thing which comes along. And even some older things we hastily move back towards because of their comfort. The focus on doing the best job means being attentive not simply to the outputs, but to the craftsmanship which happens during.

Avanceé believes we can design the present using the future’s tools not because the tools are here, but because we are. What we create when the focus is that hasn’t yet been given the words, images, or videos to be described… yet.

Design Thinking... Maybe Similar

Tue, 09 Jan 2018 12:57:00 -0400

If Avanceé sounds like aspects of design thinking, that’s deliberate. To invite out-of-the-box perspectives into “business as we know it” settings, you have to often ask the questions which will reshape your grounding.

Explaining “Out-of-the-Box“

Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:49:00 -0400

Avanceé is a deliberate effort to help successful product teams figure out what’s next. It isn’t so much making existing products or projects efficient, but taking those existing items and looking at them from a context well outside of what’s been profitable and established. This will lead us down some interesting roads - many of which haven’t been cut or paved yet. And still, these are travels products and teams will want to take in order to continue forward in this changing world.

Here’s an example of one of the design-thought exercises we performed for a recent client: Note: this image created using Paper by 53

Articles on Avanceé.Agency

Uncovering Capability Architecture

Thinking Spaces

Why Organizations Don’t Need More Strategy — They Need Structural Integrity

Musing on Embedded Leverage

Using LLMs to Create Reusable Content

Musing on Decision Architecture and Misalignment

Reflecting on HTML As A Canvas

Bots vs Scribbles

Seeing Concepts More Clearly

Avanceé Reads for 9 Jan 26 🔗

Frameworks: Progressions

Hopeful Breakthroughs in Wearables & Connected Tech

A Capacity to Dig, Wrench, and Fill

Echos of Magic Wand

Repair Assistants As the Better Wearable Acceptance Route

Credits, Credentials, and Certificates

Replacing Wipers and Wearable Tech Characteristics

Who Should Own the AI in Your Org

Paying Attention to LLM (AI) Gaps

On AI Tools and Focus

Thoughts About Meta Connect’s 👓 Product Announcements

On Small Experiments

Next Up

Applying Lessons Using Dia Skills

Unlocking AI Engineering ROI and LLM-Powered Innovation

Frame 👓 Experiment Update

Directions for AI Engineering

What Comes Next

Final Takeaways

The Wisdom of Frameworks

A Website, An App, or An Agent

The Way It Used to Be

A Route That’s Becoming

Decision Points for Web, App, Agent Experiences

Thoughts on Procurement and Communication

Speed, Velocity, and Tempo

Avanceé Articles in 2025 So Far

Jan 2025

Feb 2025

March 2025

April 2025

May 2025

June 2025

Difference Between What You Are Selling and What You Are Selling

Working with Refreshed Tools

WWDC 25 Quick Thought on iPadOS

Clarity of Costs

Reviewing Past Fractional Clarity

Peeled Thoughts Rarely Shared

Articulating Something Through the Noise

A View of This Connected Time

Video: How Muse Fits Avanceé’s Workflow

When Do We Get to Molding

On Perspective

Avanceé Reads for 25 April 25 🔗

Making AR More Useful

Chatting about Muse Today

UX Solutions Architecture - Four Pillars

Timelines: Musings on Productivity ♾️

You Aren’t Looking for A Coach

Timelines: Brigadoon Annapolis ♾️

Torque Wrenches

An Inevitability of AI Doing Something

Timelines: March 2018’s Link Shares ♾️

Opining about Human-Centered Design in Civic Tech

Update to Brilliant Labs Frame 👓 Experiment

Stumbling As Agility

Considerations and Certifications

About AI/ML:

About Websites and Social

Problem-Focused versus/and People-Focused

Wrapping Up

OpenAI Operator Quick Thoughts

On Data Visualizations and Decisions

Mindful of Crypto

The Augmented Intelligence Challenge

Implications of AiPin and Oura Connectivity

Prescription Lens Judgement

Responsive Communication