Tuesday, June 14, 2016

#econfPSU Closing Keynote - Scott Dadich of WIRED

The Man of WIRED

WIRED was started in 1993...the magazine and the website were started concurrently.  They're a rarity in that and the first to champion digital.  What they're LESS proud of is being the inventor of the banner ad...*cue multiple boos*.  (Sorry about that)  They are the informational voice that talks about the way the world is changing...at least technologically.

In 1993, Dadich was a junior in high school...Jurassic Park was the #1 film, Windows NT, and the entirety of the Internet fit on 50 servers.  Today, Star Wars The Force Awakens topped 2 billion, 1 in 7 humans log into Facebook EVERY DAY, YouTube reaches more adults than cable TV, and Microsoft is a service company and a hardware company...oh, and Apple's Market value = > 500 billion.  WIRED always set out to feel like a letter written back from the future.  20 years, let's say...but now, what used to take 20 years to happen happens in about 20 months. 

What Is Design?
Everyone knows it...but knows their own.  Scott uses the Wright Brothers to illustrate design: Everyone thinks they designed flight.  No.  There were several flying machines before them.  They designed the human control element that allowed it to happen.  They brought it into the realm of human control.

What choices do we have when we design?  Red/blue, steel/spruce, Python/ruby...these are all design questions.  So, in some sense, we are all designers.  We are designing all the time.  Design makes things work...

Design is decision-making.

Decision upon decision ultimately builds, creates, or just plain MAKES something. 

And sometimes...it's important to make the WRONG decision.


Scott's Early Days

He started as a Creative Director for WIRED and was hired by a guy named Chris.  One of the things Chris wanted to do was to make the magazine "grow up".  The challenge, then, was to remodel WIRED for a modern context.  What he did was back into the component parts to understand how every little piece was built on a very common element: The pixel.  The logo represented binary (on/off/on/off) as well as the vibrations through the spine.  And, guess what?  Scott wasn't allowed to change the logo or the spine vibe.

So, Scott had a typeface created (a slab serif), went a bit more "Mad Men", a more monochromatic feel...and he was told to add more color.  Pissed, he walked away and found the gnarliest colors (safety cone orange) and added one square.  One.  And it was awful...

...but it drew attention to what was RIGHT with the design.  How SO MUCH ELSE was right.  So, next issue he went with a big RED stripe...the following he started pitting artist against artist, trying to actually make it NOT right/work.  Three-ish years later, they had come up with something...all through the "wrong" decision/design.  Present day, the spine (among so much else) has changed significantly.


The Wrong Theory and Wrong Theory Decisions

This concept has been there all along, despite Scott thinking he had actually come up with.  John Rand in 1841 came up with incredible new hues through chemistry, etc...and out of it came Impressionism.  Degas is another prime example: The pole in the middle his impressionist work with the horse/jockey...it was RIDICULED.  But then?  You begin to see it (the line element) being used more and more and more. 

Stravinsky in 1913 wanted to debut a piece featuring strings syncopating with winds, but also kettle drums playing counter to it.  By the second act of its debut, there was a riot in the theatre...they ejected 46 people, there were fights, etc.  A year later?  Biggest hit ever.  And the piece was rhythms and melodies from popular folk tunes layered over each other.  It built on what people knew, then made a considered choice.

Stravinsky was one of the first remix artists.  Boom.

Miles Davis (Bitches Brew) and The Sopranos...also examples. They all understood the rules and made a calculated decision.  It wasn't about ignoring the rules.  It was about becoming an expert within the rules BEFORE making exceptions to them.  Wrong Theory is Experimentation, Build Consensus, Find Perfection, then Ruin It.  Crazy.  But, if it feels bad, you're probably on your way to something new...wrong, right, or otherwise.  Design is not just about making something beautiful...it's about making something work.

(Got sidetracked listening, sorry...amazing stuff, one of the best examples being how similar our online experience is (Apple, Google, and Microsoft's native font is nearly identical) compared to how divergent the PC/iMAC situation was)

SimCity, Upsilon Circuit, Netflix...ALL playing with Wrong Decisions...and it WORKS.  In cars, Volvo makes a car JUST FOR RIDE SHARING...the one decision being taking out the front seat.  3D Printing...just a plastic spitting machine which now has been, for lack of a better term, reverse engineered.  Even our home furnishing...we're seeing it EVERYWHERE.


Find Your Orange Bar...Go Make Something Perfect...and Ruin It

I have always been risk averse for the sake of not "ruining/changing" something that works.  This talk has definitely, at minimum, started my considering of changing that thought process.  I'm hoping that I can go back to my current situation (which is chock full of change) and actually take it and ruin it for the better...I can only hope. 

#econfPSU Keynote The Third - Debbie Millman "Why Branding?"

MySpace and Beyond

Debbie was asked why MySpace, back in the day, did so well...based on its brand.  And she didn't know.  She went to MySpace, created a user ID, thought the UI was awful, and never went back.  She realized that MySpace was started two years earlier as an online storage site, but Debbie still didn't know why it had gotten so popular.

She did TONS of work and research on that very topic (including two books on branding significance) and FINALLY landed on an answer...which she's going to reserve for the end of the keynote.  Well played, Ms Millman...well played.


Back In Time

Debbie went back in time to how we branded to begin the process of picking apart the WHY as to how MySpace got big.  One of the first things she looked at was a supermarket...there's 100's of different brands of WATER...coffee?  Similar.  Hell, you go into your local Starbucks, there is nearly 19 MILLION possible combinations.  But they all look, fundamentally, similar.

Then there's the "anti-branders"...Adbusters, NoLogo, Buy Nothing Day...they're full of it, because they brand themselves.  So WHY...WHY do we feel the need to create new brands/branding?

Debbie went into a rabbit hole and landed on the conditions that lead to the conditions...50,000 years ago, no less.  At this point, our brains underwent a genetic mutation (a 3 in one brain) and they respond to markedly different stimuli than what they had.  It essentially became the "Big Brain Bang" or "The Great Leap Forward".  It's how we became the species we are today...no big deal, right?

Debbie covers the three portions/levels of the brain...reptilian, mammalian, and the true human element.  The "Big Brain", if you will, handles the cultural universals: Language, art, music, cooking, and self-decoration.  And it was at this point in our evolution that we started to focus on two things: Making or Marking.


Making or Marking

Our understanding of reality begins to be recorded on cave walls.  There's very little difference between cave paintings and what we put on our Facebook wall.  We start to apply makeup 10,000 years ago, to make ourselves more attractive to an almighty god, then create symbols to further explain the concept.  Crescent shields and flags begin to appear to designate friend v foe on the battlefield.  We used it because there was no way to mass produce uniforms, so flags it was.

The word "Brond" derives from "to make or mark with fire".  Livestock begin to be "marked", wooden surfaces, etc...Trademarks come into being in January 1, 1876.  The very first trademark was Bass Ale (yesssssssssss).  The first place the logo was seen in an advertisement (1882) was in an oil painting. 

So, what's happened since then?


5 Waves of Modern Brand Evolution

Wave 1 (1875-1920
)

Brands were guaranteed to be of quality and "premium".  People would spend an extra bit of money for something that was in a special kind of packaging.  Condensed soup, soap, Coca Cola...if you took a train from State College to California, anywhere you got a Coke you could expect it to be the same no matter where.  They'd be safe and they'd be of quality.

Wave 2 (1920-1965)
Ads and brands become Anthropomorphized - They were no longer reliant on a person or quality...they were about competition and differentiation.  Personality of a brand comes to the fore front.  Betty Crocker, Uncle Ben's, etc...these brands weren't based in reality...they were fictitious.  BUT, people thought they were real...and that's all that mattered.  You could relate to and project onto a character.

Wave 3 (1965-1985)
Brands become self-expressive statements:  The brand I'm wearing, carrying, or using says something about you.  If I'm wearing Levi jeans, I'm cool as shit.  A brand, at this point, could provide status.  It signified something about the carrier.  Levi, Nike, Marlboro, Volkswagen...Marlboro man hasn't been in an ad for 20+ years, and Debbie's undergrad students can still identify him without fail.

Wave 4 (1985-2005)
Brands as an experience:  From the brand, you would expect an emotional transformation.  Disney, Apple, Starbucks...if you engage with these brands, you would have a different emotional feeling about not only yourself but life itself.

The Path to Wave 5 (2005-present)
Our brains feel happiest when we are securely attached to those who take care of us.  BUT, now more and more people are living alone.  1 in 3 households, present day, are single person households and the perception of this has changed COMPLETELY.  SO...why was MySpace so big?  Sitting around the radio, black and white tvs, color tvs, cell phones...where next?

Pre-YouTube, Pre-Facebook, what were we doing online?  Emails, playing games.  That's it. 

Enter the iPod and "Isolation Nation" - Critics wrote that civilization was doomed because we were only interested in what was happening on our device.  Per James Katz, "The iPod psychologically depopulates social space view and increases isolation and anomie".  What does this mean for a species whose brains are wired to harmoniously resonate with one another?  What happens?

WE ADDRESS IT.  Enter Social Media.  And THAT'S how Social Media became so popular.  Wave 5, then, is branding as a connecter.  We're not in love with the device, we're in love with the feeling of connectivity we get from said device.  Social, shopping, dating, education...they're all in it.


So, Why Do We Brand?

Ultimately, we create brands to create tribes to help us feel bigger than we actually are.  What's alarming, though, (predicted by Henry Miller in 1938) is that no matter how much we increase the wage earning of the individual, they're always looking for the next rung.  If we are using the largest possible flat screen TV to equate happiness, we are kidding ourselves.  That feeling only lasts for a short period of time...the dopamine fades fast.

We are metabolism machines, and this also includes our feelings.  When you first meet someone, it's magic.  First six months of dating, awesome.  2-5 years later, you complain about how the other person breathes.  The same thing holds true in the social arena...the next Generation (D), where D = depressed, struggles to keep up with this "manufactured online presence".

We need to rethink the purpose of the brands we're manufacturing.  And it comes down to three things:

1.) Help People Feel Connected
2.) Inspire People To Feel Okay AS IS
3.) Make a Difference In People's Lives


Conclusion

Incredible talk about an angle I, as a mere consumer, have never considered.  Takeaway-wise, I'm going to be taking a much longer, harder look at how I consume, purchase, and (ultimately) brand myself.  Great retrospective on branding and society in general.



 

Monday, June 13, 2016

#econfPSU Keynote 2: Eric Meyer - Designing for Crisis

The Background

Family vacation...daughter taken to ER...tested positive for strep.  Never got better, went home, went to another hospital.  Seizure, CT Scan, 2nd seizure...I'm having trouble typing the rest of this.  In just 3 days, his daughter went from "normal" to "brink of death".  CT Scan comes back, brain mass identified, life flighted to CHOP.  Without them.  Not knowing if they'd see her again.

Someone that they just barely knew volunteered to drive them to CHOP...11 at night...barely able to comprehend what was happening.  Thoughts went through his head: How do we get to our daughter?  Not, Is she alright?  Will she be alright?  Just "How do we get there?".  Eric realized he had his iPhone, googled CHOP, and the image was their homepage:  A brochure that was out of focus.  At this point, Eric didn't have the mental capacity to comprehend what he was seeing.  He was past that. 

He finally identified the nav bar, after weeding through so much else he didn't need..."comatose 5 year old" was not a result.  He managed to find a "What to expect during your child's visit" page.  He eliminated Outpatient, Emergency Room, hoped for Inpatient...and tried them in order.  He clicked Inpatient...he clicked Surgical...nothing but massive walls of texts.  Nothing but references to documents you should bring, play activities...he didn't know if she'd play again.  He went through EVERY SINGLE LINK...and not ONE would answer their question: How do I get to my child?


The Phone Number

There was a phone number in the side menu on every page he visited...he was doing his research on an IPHONE...but it never occurred to him to USE IT LIKE A PHONE AND CALL.  Eric was browsing on his phone, with the weaker battery, so that his wife could answer when THE HOSPITAL CALLED.  They were acting on instinct..."You don't decide what your users will want to do on mobile."  We also don't get to decide what users choose to use our product...

Who does the site work for?  Marketing?  Upper Management?  (Personal tragedy aside, this sounds ALL too familiar to my situation.)  The parents bringing kids in for a routine procedure, outpatient visit, etc...sure.  But who else? What about the user/parent in crisis?  The emergent user.  The person who has a stalker who's made a credible threat against them?  The person whose auto draft failed on their mortgage payment for the past 3 months?  The parent trying to get to their dying child?

It takes EMPATHY.


Empathy is a Core Dev Skill


Eric shows a picture of the CHOP homepage with a button in the middle, reading: "Unexpected visit to CHOP?  Here's what you need to know.".  If you're driving in, here's where you park...here's how you pay for parking...here's where you go...here's where you go in the AM, in the PM...It takes empathy.  They could have done that and still let the CEO feel good about their "Top 100" banner on their homepage...but you have to think about everyone...potentially those at the worst place they could be.

It's good to design for the 10%, as opposed to the 90%...also referred to as the Edge Case.  But, when you use it, you're willing to define those you don't necessarily actively care about.  Eric believes the term should be replaced with STRESS Case.  When you use this term, you're not defining where your 'limit' is.  Stress Cases are good because they Stress test your work without minimizing users who may need your service.


Combine Persona With Context

Eric shows three "avatars": Happy, stressed, and (for lack of a better term) nuclear/crisis.  He then adds three "contexts": Midweek lunch, After bedtime, and Waiting Room in a hospital.  The level to which the crisis appears characteristically can vary based on the context.

He goes on to share more of the story...arriving at the hospital, most of which is closed down, dark, locked, etc.  They managed to finally find the elevator to get to their daughter's floor, and were greeted with an eerily (see: user hostile) child voice in the elevator greeting them.  But, at midnight, WHO WANTS TO HEAR THAT?  Again, the CEO and other higher ups probably LOVED it, but didn't stop too think...to empathize with the people who would be there at midnight.  There's ONLY ONE KIND OF PERSON THERE THEN...and it's not good.


Auto Insurance Example and Beyond

Eric goes on to relay another story where he was on vacation and a car t-boned his mini van.  Drivable, he was able to get in touch with insurance and work through their web form...through MUCH to do.  But he was on vacation...he was a best case scenario...he had all the mental bandwidth in the world.  What about the one car, paycheck to paycheck, service industry worker driving home from the late shift...same situation, different context/person.  What then?

Whoever made the interface on that site didn't think of THEM.  THEY assumed best case for anyone having to use the site.  HUGE oversight on their part...not being empathetic to the people who would truly need them.  He goes on to relay about "Lowes Depot" and their mission statement...gloriously floral in its verbiage...but was focused at the happy coulple having fun improving their home.  NEVERMIND the ones who had their fridge die, leak water, and start leaking through drywall and floorboards.  Bottom line:  THINK BEYOND BEST CASE.  "Lowes Depot" rethought their approach and revised with the following guidelines:
Prioritize helpful, realistic estimates.
Provide at a glance help.
Use plain language.
Write for the urgent case.
By planning for the worst, they were able to be at their best.


Back to Medical Imaging

Medical imaging rooms, in general, are scary.  Freaky.  Even when they try to make some moves towards "kid-like", it's not.  The room is scary, the potential end result is scary, and parents trying to hide the scared only end up making the kid more scared.  Bad situation, overall, medical imaging.  What's more, the imaging doesn't work if the kids move.

Most kids were FREAKING OUT, so the kids have to be sedated...LOTS of potential bad with Anesthesia: Death, reaction, long term damage, etc.  And the process takes a LONG TIME...they're scheduled for 10, you need to be there at 8...anesth starts at 9, and so on.

Enter GE Corporation, Doug Dietz, and their "Adventure Series" - "Helping children's imaging go from terrifying to terrific."  Right around the time Doug was realizing this issue, folks at the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh were identifying this to and working something into their CT Scan process to help put the kids at ease.  They went to a party store, got a bunch of cheap toys and promised it to them if they held still.  Did it work?

In 2005, 354 kids were sedated.  In 2007? 4  The wait time to get in for a CT went to basically -0- because of this reduction, whereas it was 17 days before...17 days they had to sit through wondering...worrying.  All because of a simple trip to a party store...  Pittsburgh and GE/Dietz worked together to create a more inviting suite, and the results continue to improve.  MRIs were next in line to receive the "Adventure Series" treatment...with a 25.2% drop in sedation, and a 55% increase in patients seen (2009-2011). 

Conclusion
It's hard to put a finger on just where this hits me most...is it the anger towards designers staying quagmired in a "best case" mindset?  Is it embarrassment that I've done this very thing?  Is it sadness at Eric's story?  Professionals need to look at users in crisis...not users in a best case scenario.   Lives can be changed for the better.  Lives can be made more comfortable.

Eric charges us with the most thankless task:  People in crisis will not notice your work when you design for them in crisis.  But you will have helped them in the most profound way by simply not adding to their burden.  He thanks us in their place...

...no, Eric - Thank you.

#econfPSU Kickoff Keynote - Scott Stratten

UnSelling

President of Unmarketing, former music industry marketing, and professor at the Sheraton School of Business.  Worked with Pepsi, Adobe, and now us...man bun and kittens mentioned.  This should be awesome.

Screaming, Anger, Millennials...Ho Boy...

Why do we use the term UnMarketing?  Very simple - The UN means the actual branding and selling doesn't mean as much as what we do.  His book cover is BLANK.  Try to convince a publisher to do that...you'll see how hard it is to push.  But, it's WHAT YOU DO.  Ask any students/alum - Whenever you say a student's school name/title, it's what they DO.  When you see a university's logo, IT DOESN'T MATTER.  Despite what you think, the logo just creates a definition of what's behind it.  NO ONE has ever said "Hey, I got awful care at this hospital, BUT DID YOU SEE THE LOGO?"

(Oh my God...I'm listening...this is the very battle I'm fighting RIGHT NOW.)

A brand is a VERB, it's what we DO...it is NOT a logo. 

There's two types of people: People who do good to be recognized, and people who do good just because.  The story of the EKU president shoveling the driveway to get a kid to class is a PRIME example.  If that president took his own picture, that'd be one thing.....but the fact that it was a student taking his picture and it's just because he was there?  Stratten reached out to the President, as follows:

"You're awesome."
"Thank you."
"Why'd you do it?  Shouldn't you be up in, like, an ivory tower mandating to the masses?"
"My job is to serve my students.  If Twitter is the medium by which my students reach out, then I'll reach out to them this way."

He's not good at Twitter.  He's good AND he's on Twitter. There is no tool that is inherently successful.  There is nothing that works on its own.  There is no logo that makes information more relevant and engaging.  It's the push behind it.  And that's IMPORTANT.

We need to learn to use EMAIL properly before we're trying to implement this that and the other thing to solve our problems.  We don't need to re-design a look or a logo or a template (*AHEM*) to make our efforts more effective....we need to START PUTTING EMPHASIS ON WHAT MATTERS.  The effort...the intent...these things matter FIRST, all else second.  Don't use technology for the sake of technology.

...and Rosler said, "Amen".

Everything we do and say online and offline is the BRAND. 

You're The Brand

Everything you say and do is the brand.  You are the brand.  There's no such thing as a neutral brand interaction.  People need to realize they impact the brand, and a lot of times they don't realize they do.  The funnel comes into play...

You can have all the likes you want...you can have all the follows...IT'S NOT NEW.

6 years ago, people are freaking out saying "we finally have a social platform", and those of us who are older school are like "B&*%h please".  IRC, ICQ, etc...FORUMS...and WOE be to you if you tried to post an ad on there.  You get the old "Shame and Flame".  We're breaking social media.  Twitter's where Scott built his world.  Four books and twitter supported them all.  Remember the old days of Twitter (like 9 months ago)?  We just TALKED.  Now?  NO ONE TALKS. 

What happens is when we just shout on a platform, you lose the people who create the ecosystem leave.  New people come and see nothing but shouting, and they're not gonna come into it.  Scott was in HR, but he had to get out...because he...umm...hated people.  But they didn't like conflict, so they didn't FIRE the BAD employee.  They just avoided the conflict.  There's the problem.

The Milennials, Scott...they're coming

BUT WE NEED TO USE THESE PLATFORMS BECAUSE THEY'RE COMING!!!!

Fact: Milennials are from 18-35...not just where we peg them.

We LABEL milennials.  What we mean is: People younger than us who we don't like.  End.
(Or because they're younger than us.)  We WANT them to feel a little suffering.  We just want you to feel the PAIN of holding down PLAY RECORD AND PAUSE to record our favorite song on tape.  we used to line up and buy 29 dollar pieces of plastic to hear the ONE SONG THAT DIDN'T SUCK.  We DON'T LIKE THE GENERATION BEFORE US.  Gen X-ers WERE the laziest, disloyalest, unmotivatedest...but THEN Milennials came along.  And we were saved.

"But Milennials don't like meetings..."

WHO LIKES %^&*ING MEETINGS?!?!?!

"Ohh...Milennials like to travel..."

WHO DOESN'T LIKE TO ^&#$ING TRAVEL?!?!?!

But when we say Milennial, we label it and it's ALLOWABLE BIAS.  If you want to stereotype, let's talk about good shit:  They volunteer more than any other generation (3:1), they give more per capita to charity...they want to change the world.  SO LET THEM CHANGE THE GODDAMN WORLD!!


QR CODES - What's the deal?

Out of spite, they put a QR Code on Scott's nametag...too good.

Scott loves the technology...they're a better barcode.  Boarding pass, concert ticket...great.  But for the general population that doesn't have a QR reader built into their camera, they're practically useless.  The technology is useful to a microscopic segment of the population.  Bring in the fact that use of mobile isn't permissible in all areas...are you seeing the problem?

360 video, augmented reality, virtual reality...JUST STOP.  Technology for the sake of technology doesn't serve a SINGLE thing.  Being tech-savvy and hip does NOTHING to getting your message and product across.  Focus on your message, focus on your content...THEN, and only THEN...focus on that "other stuff".


Conclusion
Easily, by far, one of the greatest motivational speeches/presentations I've ever had the pleasure of being present for.  It touched upon a very real, very immediate situation in my workplace and gave me a different perspective on the perspective Scott and I share (Content > Brand).  Hysterical at all the right times, but carrying meaning like not many others have done, Scott laid out his message perfectly, and I can easily say that my "brand" will be getting an overhaul in approaching the overall "brand" I need to get behind.  10+/10...and I might even post this on Yelp.



Saturday, October 3, 2015

DevLearn 2015 The Recap - "Listen"


Me Aculpa...And All That

Let me be the first to apologize: For as much as my "Why I Blog" post referenced conference blogging, and how I live blog everything I'm in, I did a marginal job, at best, this time, and definitely feel light in the blog department.  But with that apology comes another...

Sorry...not sorry.

See, there was a reason for the lacking blog presence, and it wasn't that the conference was lacking, or that the sessions weren't diverse, or that something was wrong anywhere.  It was the total opposite: At this conference, I found more going on, more being taught, more intriguing "stuff", and it led me to do something that, admittedly, I'd not done in a long time: Stop typing/tweeting/etc. and LISTEN.

This year's DevLearn was off the chart in a number of areas, but the one that seemed to rise to the top in all accounts was keeping me busy.  And busy is a good thing, I found...here's why:

Honey Do, Honey Do
One of the biggest differences for me this year was that I went from a paltry ONE session being presented to being involved with FOUR (assuming you consider the Morning Buzz among my numbers...which you should...just sayin).  And while that would likely sound like a deterrent to anyone with their head on straight, any of you that know me know that's not the case here (re: my cranium being one attached in a straightforward method).

All kidding aside, being as busy as I was made everything I was able to attend that much more poignant.  I found myself almost "thirsty" to absorb whatever I could amidst my own obligations (and in no way, shape or form am I saying that because I couldn't attend as much things were better...I'm saying that the content was incredibly rich in the narrow windows I could "attend", so I can only imagine how less busy people felt!).  Additionally, presenting/participating as much as I did lent itself to my own personal learning (see: gleaning) from the awesome attendees that were in my/our sessions.  We all know that peer-to-peer education is the strongest, retention-wise, and I feel like because I was surrounded by so many phenomenal audience members, I gained that much more. 

(Not saying I want to do 5 or 6 sessions or anything, Dave...but busy works for me.)

The Spice of Life...(AKA Variety)

Another factor I noticed this year, in and among my attempts to breathe, was the sheer robustness of the conference.  I am in no way, shape, or form saying that any previous DevLearn was lacking - Nothing could be farther from the truth.  But this year, felt just...complete...in a way I'd never experienced it before. 

It's not like I adhered to a track...or hung out with a docent...nothing like that.  I wasn't there looking for anything in particular.  But it was almost like I couldn't turn my head 90 degrees in any direction without finding/seeing something worth attending and learning AT LEAST two or three things I hadn't walked in with.  Even MEMEs, which I consider myself mildly to moderately proficient in, proved educational to me (see: PechaKucha).  And for a longstanding attendee, like myself?  That's pretty damned awesome...(though I'm still working through what, exactly, xAPI actually is...but I'm getting there, Aaron/S Put). 

Overall, just a bigger, better, badder, more innovative conference...I can't say it enough: DevLearn is the Cadillac (or whatever brand car you like best) of the eLearning circuit.

Adam Savage.Relax.  This isn't me fanboying out any harder than I already did (but BELIEVE ME, I could).  This heading is about, first of all, the greatest keynote speaker DevLearn has seen/heard...ever...yes, ever (so much for the not fanboying), but it's not for the reasons you'd think.  It's not for the content, necessarily, of his keynote...though MY GOD it was amazing, wasn't it? (Strike 2, Rosler...).  There were three different times, in the Q&A with Dave, nonetheless, where Adam Savage, for as long as I've watched him/been a fan, had me identifying with him hardcore (and feeling good about my faults):

1.) It's hard to be wrong...even for Adam Savage.  I admittedly can't recall whether it was during his keynote or in the Q&A after, but Adam related to us all how he's had a problem with not knowing things.  Well, last time I admitted that, Neil DeGrasse Tyson threatened to slap me (true story), so imagine my delight knowing that it's really okay (confirmed, even) to not know things.  That one of the greatest joys in life is to actually hang around people who know more than you and just soak it in...that it's a badge of honor, in Adam's eyes, to admit you don't know something.  He related that the smartest people he knows aren't that ones that always have the answers, but, rather, the ones that can ask for the answer when they don't know. I've struggled since the beginning of my career (and then some) to be okay with that, and hearing him say that made me that much better.

2.) It's hard to be a good listener...even for Adam Savage.  For as much as I've always struggled with the whole "knowing everything" issue, those around me have (for the most part) patiently endured my perpetually pending need to spring forth with a quip, analogy, or related story when they've been telling me something.  So, imagine my surprise when someone who I sincerely look up to (yes, Mr Savage) comes out to the audience as a terrible listener!  And, it circles back to the whole "not knowing the answer issue"...if I've got something spring-loaded quick enough, it won't matter that I don't know...they won't have the time to realize!  But it's okay to not know, and it's okay to listen and absorb...again, super reassuring.

3.) Being enthusiastic about things we like is awkward, sometimes...even for Adam Savage.  Probably the point that left me the most gutted, though (in the best way, mind you), was Adam recounting how he liked things that other kids around him didn't when he was 9...and his childhood was awkward, difficult, and so on because of it.  And that it hadn't ended...that even today, mega-success that he is, there's still interests he has that there's a moment (if not more) of embarrassment when he realizes those around him see his enthusiasm...and judge it, if just a bit.  I don't know that there's anyone who grows up to be an e-learning practitioner/figure/guru that DOESN'T experience this, and it was nothing short of reassuring to hear the face of science on Discovery channel say: It's okay.  Be honest - Your interests are different...they might even be weird.  But they're only perceived that way because the perceivers are the ones who are limited.  And the weird kids?  They grow up to be the cool(ish), smart(ish) "adults".  Trust me on that one.

But, At The End Of It All...Community Wins Again

I've exhausted my ability to recall the names of the people I used to simply watch from afar who now accept me as one of their own...wait...one of our own...so I won't even try (with thanks to Mark Shepperd for the idea to not namedrop).  But, long story short, DevLearn is to me, and continues to be to me about COMMUNITY.  Plain.  Simple.  Truth/

YES...I get it, that's my presentation.  YES...I get it, that's what I wrote my recap on last year.  YES...I get it...it's almost a softball response.  I get it all...ALL of it.

BUT...it's true.  And every year I embed myself further, it becomes more and more true.  The people make the event.  The people who appreciate each other, draw from each other, and give to each other tirelessly.  Let's see if I can do a mass name drop (and if you're not in the mix...sue me):

Jane Bozarth, Ellen Wagner, Dave Kelly, Kevin Thorn, Sarah Gilbert, Cammy Bean, Mark Shepperd, Tom Spiglanin, Jeanette Campos, JD Dillon, Tracy Parish, Aaron Silvers, Sean Putman, Bill Brandon, Clark Quinn, Karl Kapp, Julie Dirksen, Mark Britz, Joe Ganci, Brian Dusablon, Trina Rimmer, Connie Malamed, Steve Howard, Neil Lasher...

Okay.  Enough.  But, as I told people in my session about Community, THESE are the people I can count on, day or night.  THESE are the people who respond at odd hours almost immediately to what questions about damn near anything.  THESE are the people I was nervous to approach and say "Hey...I think things...", only to find out they think them, too.  Just like me. 

And WE...well, we're still smarter then ME...so long as you just LISTEN.

Thanks again for another phenomenal experience...can't wait to do it all over again in 2016.  And there WILL be ukes.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Session 614 - Meme-ing the Innovative World of Learning (Dave Kelly, Cammy Bean, Jeanette Campos, Jane Bozarth)

Can you do a whole session centered around memes?  With these four rockstars/icons, anything is possible...20 seconds each slides...four speakers...all memes...GO!

Party Like It's 1532...or 1940 (Cammy Bean)

Cammy Bean discusses the rising prevalence of apprenticeships...taking it back to 1532...or 1940.  Relates an old training video, specifically focusing on the 5 things (in 1940) to find the right people for the right position.  Also mentioned that we're not providing the right training to our managers to be able to do so.  THEN, the managers can go so far as to give their employees the support they need, too.  GENIUS!

But where can we find this training?  Cammy relates a story of her husband fixing the car by going to "The Google" and trying...and it worked for a bit.  Are we supporting this kind of accessibility in the workplace?  In my experience, anyway, the answer is a resounding NO.  Cammy says to let go of looking to shiny things and buzzwords...just stop.  We're chasing buzzwords and objects.  How can we take the tools that work and use innovation to learn them?  Let's use the older models of learning (apprenticeships) and "play them forward".  How can we support learning naturally?  Ultimately, that's what matters.

Let's innovate, not by looking ahead, but by looking to the past.

Badges...I'm Gamified! (Jane Bozarth)

Jane worries sometimes that we're so concerned and transfixed on the technology that we forget exactly what it's being used for.  It's not just about being gamified, or badges...

We know that things are being automated/robotized.  Bookkeepers, sports writers, pharmacists, drivers...all being replaced.  We're seeing changes in the work contract...work is becoming more like Uber.  We'll see changes in daily commutes and issues, then, based on this vocational change.  People will be rewarded for the work they do, not for the hours they work.  We won't have IT departments...they'll become custodians as opposed to gatekeepers because they're not needed.

Created/making will take on a massive upswing (craft beer), independence and beyond.  Workers are going to walk away from the institutional structure, and more to freedom.  Work and social are going to be more tightly interwoven.  We'll develop our own personal networks, reaching out to who we need when we need them.  We'll be dealing with workers who can post ideas to something like Instagram, conferring within their own network, and become more immediate.

Education is going to change massively, away from the K-12 structure it's in now.  We're going to change media literacies away from text.  We'll get away from learning styles, and Myers-Briggs, etc.  We have a more tech-savvy, interenet-savvy workforce than ever before...and it's about damn time.  They can search for answers on YouTube, Google, and so on. 

Wearable tech is becoming more ubiquitous re: personal data.  If you need something during the day, your glasses and watch will provide.  Your "band" is monitoring your health. 

How do we get people to serve the organization's goals?  How do we get people to bring their best self to work?  We're going to have to do a lot better at accommodating, at allowing freedom, at allowing personal style and preference.

The Future is Now (Dave Kelly)

You can't talk about innovation without talking about how things are changing.  We are a group of people who don't move quickly.  We're still LEARNING PROFESSIONALS, but you don't learn someone...we train them.  It's not a bad thing, but it's an honest thing. 

"It's gonna take you 6-8 weeks to create an e-learning course?  AIN'T NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT!"

People are taking control of their learning.  Why are we still giving a SH*T about how many asses were in seats?  Why are we still acting like we care about 'reports'?  Well, what if I told you your role has already changed?

We have to wipe the slate clean COMPLETELY.  We bring old methodologies forward to new ones instead of just replacing them.  The "Course", for example, is the default solution...and they're fine, but it's not the only solution.  We have to stop people from learning to take them, but we should be focusing on being less disruptive with our knowledge-giving.  We need to be curious and look at things differently. 

Change is a good thing.  No, really...but we're all afraid of change...we need to do it.  The future has occurred, innovation is happening in our daily lives, not just our professions.  "The myth that we don't need to change?  BUSTED."

Turning Training On Its Head (Jeanette Campos)

J Campos is legitimate.  For real.

She loves learning and loves chemistry cat.  She spends a lot of time learning and how we can do it better.  Sometimes she breaks the rules and doesn't use memes. 

We aren't training learners in optimal conditions.  It's like putting lipstick on a pig.  Now, we're doing some things right, but we still have problems.  Jeanette recently spent an hour talking about flipcharts, and that's when she realized something had to change. 

Everybody knows how to do the Whip/Nae Nae and it doesn't have a learning objective!  Training is insufficient.  Training itself doesn't lead to meaningful performance.  So, what is the Innovation?

The Innovation is Integration of learning.  "If you could integrate learning...that would be GRRREAT."  Talent management, management, etc...if we could get learning closer to the work to learn while working, THAT'S the innovation.  What if we were able to go into a workplace and invest all of our training dollars teaching colleagues how to coach?  Managers should develop to be teachers and coaches...and it's HAPPENING. 

AM Keynote - The One, The Only...Adam Savage

Innovation in the Making

"When we look at Adam Savage, this is someone who doesn't learn in the traditional ways...he's not teaching anyone, but we're all learning through it." - Dave Kelly re: Adam Savage

His Father, The Painter, The Poet

Adam's dad was a painter and a poet and wrote a limerick, calling out the falsehoods behind academia.  "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like" is the quote he references, and he's spot on - Too often we have to have some kind of fact or framework to find something appealing...we can't just like it, we just can't be curious about something. 

Art & Science - We often say about things that are complicated that it's an art AND a science.  Art and science are viewed as opposites, but Adam doesn't believe that they are.  We think of art and science as parts of our culture best handled by EXPERTS.  Three reasons why:

1.) We see Art and Science as opposites.  We see art as a loosy goosy thing that kids do, and science is something we suffer through.

2.) We view art as separate from ourselves.  If you Venn diagramed, we and science would be completely removed circles.
3.) When we don't know something, we don't even try.  Which is BS.

Let's Work Backwards

People look at Jackson Pollack and say "What's so great?  My kid could do that."  Fair enough...but Adam looks back through art movements throughout time...how it's tore through subject and left a story.  But we do that same thing with science: Story is related re: the material science behind breaking spaghetti...and we're JUST NOW understanding how it breaks.

Ellie Lammer did a study of Berkeley parking meters, when she was 12, and whether they were timing correctly.  Her study was so rigorous and so revealing that a piece of legislation (Lammer's Law) was passed and enforces standardization.

Adam foes on to give more examples, but suffice to say...we've been trying to find the story behind the subject.

Every generation since we've been writing stuff down has felt the same way about science.  Want proof?  SPORTS.  All sports talk about science.

The Second Cause - Art is Separate From Us

"Art is ONLY what we like." - Adam's Dad

The only opinion about art that's wrong is when you take it from someone else.  But we do the same thing with science..."I'm just not a math guy".  But Adam's friend (a filmmaker) said "I'm great at math, I'm just not good at numbers."  The art of editing is all about algorithms.  So he's using it without identifying with it.

Is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD the opposite of the CREATIVE PROCESS? 

Let's see:

1.) Come up with a question.  Adam relates, though, that this is the hardest part.  You don't start, necessarily, with the question - You start at the end point and work back to discover where the TRUE question is at (see: Running/Walking in the rain).

2.) Form a hypothesis.  Based on the question, then, what potential truth is it you want to find/arrive at?  Forming a hypothesis is a self-generating act...the more you come up with, the more you come up with.  Ideas lead to questions, questions lead to hypotheses...

3.) Design an experiment that tests your hypothesis.  Pull away variables to get past your biases and test the actual truth in something.  Per Adam, this is one of the greatest ways to look at viewing art. "To know what is true in your secret heart is true for all men."

Conclusion?  The Scientific Method is MOST DEFINITELY a creative process.  Art and science are intrinsic to how we discuss who we are.  When cavemen came together, carving stones in different ways to kill bigger animals? SCIENCE!  When they got together to celebrate killing larger game and drew cave paintings of this process? ART!

It's All Story

When you stand in front of a Jackson Pollack, you'll find a story.  When you look at a map of the universe and its shape?  It's a story.  Art and science are simply two different versions of a narrative.  Science has rigor, art has everything else.  Stories are the reason we have language.  We evolved language in order to tell each other stories, which is a conversation.  Which is culture...and culture is a conversation.  We can be stewards of a better culture by realizing art and science are not opposites.  How do we do better?

1.) Pay Attention - Adam is confronted with ideas and concepts he's never been confronted with before, but if he reads enough about a subject (see: science of viscosity) he can be a steward of that knowledge.  What he came to learn was that viscosity wasn't actually a value, but a relationship.  But if he hadn't had a conversation, he wouldn't have arrived at those truths, and the episode wouldn't have happened as awesomely as it did. 

2.) Speak Your Mind - once you've investigated something enough, it's important to actually verbalize it.

3.) Stay Curious - Curiosity is something that tends to leave people...it's a great moniker for life.  The more curious you are, the more interesting life is. 

4.) Ask Questions - Adam's had to work hard in life at being able to say "I Don't Know".  We have all pretended to know shit, but the most intelligent people Adam knows are the ones who can.  WOW can I relate...

5.) Tell Your Stories (But Listen, Too) - Share your stories, but listen to other people's stories, too.  Are you a listener or a wait-to-talker (!!!)?  Listen to the person in front of you, stop logging your stories.

Conlusion
I could wrap it up with some summary statement, but I'll let Adam speak for it:

"Art and Science are the twin engines by which we improve as a species.  They make us ALL better and NEITHER is beyond our understanding."

So, Adam Savage?  Unbelievable keynote? CONFIRMED.