Bill Buxton at BIF-5
Leading designer and Microsoft principal researcher questions why the design of most technology doesn't incorporate important social, cultural and historical perspectives.
- To embed this video in your blog, please use the icons located below the video image. To share this page or add it to your social bookmarking, use the icons below. Comments are located at the bottom of this page.
- Time: 28:06
- Mobile Version
Bill Buxton is a designer and a researcher concerned with human aspects of technology. He is Principal Researcher at Microsoft Research and has a 30-year involvement in research, design and commentary around human aspects of technology, and digital tools for the creative endeavor, including music, film and industrial design. Prior to joining Microsoft, he was a researcher at Xerox PARC, a professor at the University of Toronto, and Chief Scientist of Alias Research and SGI Inc. – where 2003 he was co-recipient of an Academy Award for Scientific and Technical Achievement. His book, Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design, approaches design and design thinking as something distinct that needs to be better understood— by both designers and the people with whom they need to work in order to achieve success with these new types of products and systems.
Comments
Sun, 11/08/2009 - 01:38 — Rotkapchen (not verified)
Bill laments reading books when there are no professional writers. What determines 'professional'? Does 'professional' dictate quality? I respect Bill's years of experience and his contributions (who can't respect someone who recognizes there are more design opportunities inside of Microsoft than in Apple?). But I pose this -- ultimate design is found in the dichotomy. Are professional writers the middle or one of the poles? Is he not lamenting something that is the least optimal design solution? Have brilliant thoughts worth reading not come from children, from students, from housewives? Is the belief that anything worth reading comes from 'professional' writers an abandonment of a fundamental premise of design?
Sat, 11/14/2009 - 14:24 — Bill Buxton (not verified)
ROTKAPCHEN
I think that we agree on the fact that mediocrity can come (and perhaps too often does) come from "professionals" and that brilliance can come from anywhere. Any aspiration towards excellence, creativity, and insight that does not take this into account is most likely to be impoverished as a result. But that is no more an argument against professionalism, than being a professional is any guarantee of excellence. In literature, journalism, hockey, or science, for example, being a professional is no insurance against being a hack.
On the other hand, there is something called "the power law of practice." Assuming that the problems that confront us are hard, and the things that fulfill us are non-trivial, my assumption is that they generally require deep levels of skill and insight. What this law states is that the primary way to achieve such excellence is through practice - and a lot of it. In many cases, the amount of practice required demands that its acquisition be a full-time job.
That means that one needs a way to sustain one's self in order to pursue this track - ideally through the practice of one's discipline. That is what being a professional means. As I already said, along the way, there will be a lot of hacks. But if we want authors, scientists, musicians, designers, and teachers of the highest standard, then my sense is that we need professionals. In saying this, I do not discount the potential contribution of the non-professional. I just don't want to count on it exclusively. No more, in fact, than I want to count on the mediocre professional. The mosaic within which we need to find balance is rich. Simply stated, I would not be happy in a world where all of the books that have been, and could be, written by professionals were eliminated. But neither would I be happy in a world where I couldn't read letters to the editor, op-eds, blogs, etc. written by non-professional writers, and yes, even children (as you point out). The point is, all are essential, but none are sufficient on their own. It is not a zero sum game.
What I was speaking about was based on my concern that we risk losing one of keystones of the mosaic. It was certainly not a rant against the other parts of the mosaic. I apologize if I did not make that clear.
Post new comment