This is how I feel sometimes in order to get the action as it is happening. I have only shot a few live games and they happened to be soccer and although I was not allowed on the field as depicted in the video, it was challenging, possibly even more so to get the shot. I didn't have to run with the players, it sounds cool but those guys are bigger than they seem and very intense. That would have been a deathwish for sure.
Watch the video a have a laugh with me.
As a Cinematographer and Director, even tho we have that one little tool called "CUT!", it doesn't always apply or give you what you need, especially these days as we shoot episodes of "Now Go Cook", where food is being applied to the recipe & video and has timing urgency that could require re-doing the entire recipe if it fails. So I feel like these camermen, scrambling to depict the right shot at the right angle with focus and clarity. A little less dangerous perhaps and afterwards we always get to eat, so I am not complaining.
The text below is a reply I gave a client recently when asked about what we were going to do on the photo gallery page of their website:
I had been thinking about the photo page recently. I have a few ideas but need to think it through, so I will get back to you on that. (obviously I have a strategy cooking here) I want to keep it fresh and new and not do the same old crap like people do, place a bunch of photos and never add or change them or carry social widgets over and make the experience feel like a melting pot of everything social. I have always encouraged people I work with to show evolution over time and in the case of an entertainers website it has twice that responsibility vs. most businesses that show little evolution of forward motion.
It hampers the user experience when people only update their Facebook page, twitter, or instagram and place a crapload of links to social when those social networks should drive users back to the place where there is the most amount of information available in the best way, but often times we fail at making the website the best place to drive the user too.
Social media is based on small incremental updates, whats happening in the moment, thoughts, highlights and so on, but carries the Brand Identity of the network when you really want to be pushing Your brand. Social media will continue to try to be all things to all people, to offer widgets and such to carry your info and format to make you believe all you need is that presence. But what about the user who is looking for more and doesn't mind leaving the social space to investigate more about you?
I believe social media is meant to drive people to a stonger experience, not lock them into the social space. They can easily be distracted and move away from your place in the social world, but when they are on the website, they are captive so we need to captivate them...to some degree.
Facebook, Google Plus and all the others have a definite place but even with strong focus on helping people brand their initiatives, users engaged in social media can't help but feel the strongest engagment is the social media network itself, the governing brand, the surrounding piece of architecture that we love but will forever scream the name of the network with ads, widgets, pokes, invites, birthdays and people dumping ice water on their heads.
Lets build a strategy that helps build content, in the moment, for the long haul and not lock it all away in someone elses world. Each piece has it's place and it is different for each player in the game. 'nuff said.
The title of this post, Flash is dead, could not be further from the truth. Flash is not dead, it is more alive than ever. This thought overcame me as I sat there listening to a guy who blurted this out in a cacophony of dribble along with about 20 other mental dumps in finality with this comment... "Even Adobe said so!". Now I don't exactly remember Adobe saying that Flash is dead or anything like that, maybe they did, but let me clue you in to what I know.
Google uses Flash. YouTube, Maps, Google Docs and collaboration platforms and interactive functionality that could not be achieved via normal HTML standards use Flash. Now, even tho Google has played a large part in maturing javascript beyond what we knew of it, Flash still performs many tasks within its contained operational boundaries well.
Zynga uses Flash. All of the interactive games presented thru Facebook and social media in past years and reaching 10 million active daily users were developed in Flash. Farmtown and all the others pumped thru Facebook and the Internet are Flash based.
Video Display uses Flash. Flash opened the door to video playback and an architecture that worked with Interactive functions beyond just stop, pause and play. Flash allowed developers to create full sites or contained modules that can access video components in many ways beyond just simple display. Within flash we could create gaming elements, layered motion images, decisive video components based on user interaction, transparent motion images and an overall ability to make video work as a part of the user experience and not just a "watch this" chunk of content.
Why do I care? I am using Flash as a way to communicate the User Flow of touchscreen interaction and User Experience designed functions on a current device controller app and it has worked amazingly well to communicate the user touch points, user flow, content flow, selction result and connection between the user, the screen function and the device function.
This practice coupled with a Windows or Android Tablet has made the project come to life without programming the entire app within any platform but rather rapidly developing and translating the Interface Design to user controlled motion interaction. This has saved time and allowed me to alter the user flow while determining the motion and control elements as we want them to be programmed for the final result. We will know what we want and how we want it to work on screen before actually programming it for the final result.
Pre Visualization is valuable and this action takes the pre-viz portion of the project to new heights. Normally I would....
1. Design wireframes, get approval, design the interface, get approval, design the content screens, get approval... the client not actually connecting with the user flow or not being able to actually test its strengths or weaknesses until the functionality is built ...or...
2. Design the content screens, develop a simple HTML user flow that limits the interaction to clicking buttons to screen selections. For a simple data flow app this may work fine, but as functions, control and display elements mature this limits the visualization process.
Finally, limited pre viz action means I have to babysit a project during programming phase or come back and modify processes that after being fleshed out we found could be better, which causes delays in development deadlines or doesnt allow me to move on to another facet or project. Solve the issues early with as much intelligence as possible so when your project goes into programming you already know the end result.
It is often questioned by clients and employers whether the wire framing stage is necessary. comparing this to contract situations where the contract actually calls for wire frames as a requirement. What is it that contract project talent acquisition or project architects know that the others don't?
From a User Experience design perspective of many years, I know what it is like to begin a project by jumping right into design and layout from a graphical perspective versus the creation of architecture via the wire framing construct. This (wireframing) is the project bones of user interfacing and functional elements.
At this point a question arises, if a database developer creates structure in a schema or architecture that depicts data interaction, or at least a simple data definition of tables and fields before creating the database and software engineers draft an outline of code structure as well as working with UX designers on flow charts and usability flow docs, then what reason could you have to not depict user experience via the wireframe before you move to the next phase?
I began this post simply wanting to depict how I went from a simple (and ugly) sketch, the concept, to a proper wire, the wireframe, to the final design, quickly. The depth of this subject changed from the prime purpose of simplicity, efficiency and workflow to that of a debate and also a call to action as the wireframe not only added to the User Experience possibilities, but also to my thought process on the subject.
1. SIMPLICITY, EFFICIENCY and WORKFLOW I was able to concept an idea and get it to the page with little time to pay to it as I wanted it done and done now. This process always helps, "plan your dive and dive your plan!"
2. DEBATE I wanted to, although I didn't intend to, contend the argument that even tho some clients think the wireframe process is costly and some designers don't like it, ultimately it saves time or even better helps flush out something you were not thinking of when you had the original concept floating in your mind.
3. CALL TO ACTION During the visual depiction of the element, I realized I was putting the user in the power position by allowing them to schedule an appointment, strictly at the control of the end client of course, but seemingly to the user they were in control in this scheduling function, leading to a possible good user experience.
Usability Testing is generally reserved for the usability of an Interactive thing, device, interface, etc. We all know that User Experience goes beyond just the experience of using a thing, device, interface or whatever. User Experience draws from all things user Related. This includes Brand Identification or Logo usage within the elements a user experiences. A Brand ID should be used everywhere a user goes, Identifying the Brand every step of the way. So, it is safe to say the usability of the Brand ID must be tested in possible environments it may exist within the users journey.
The image below depicts a redesign of a current brand. You can see the previous Brand ID and the newly redesigned mark with tagline. A simple change, but with this change problems that existed in the previous mark were identified in color and usage and corrected.
The swoosh used a transparensy mask that needed help. This caused the swoosh to appear in a complete circle when placed on certain colors and requiring tweaking of the mask to achieve certain required results. The color chosen to represent the swoosh was set at 40 percent opacity which in some cases the swoosh simply blended into the background and was lost. I fixed the mask and placed the opacity at 100 percent to ensure the swoosh would appear strong in all usage within print and multimedia.
The images below the new brand show the color choices and the effectiveness of the Grey chosen on both white and black backgrounds. This is simply usability testing
Function, Design - Designing functions, functionaly designing.....Ugh! Cranking away on this latest project and it is a mind scraper. As with any app or anything interactive you want to connect with the user or viewer and narrow in on the elements to get them as close to the product or function as possible. This App or screen interactive is not being designed for the masses, yet desgined to be used by the masses! WHAT? Let me explain.
Although this latest project is an Android App, it will not be on the Google Play store or loaded by random people for random tablet usage, it has specific purpose and function. Specific function? Don't all apps have specific function....Yes! The difference here, without giving away the goods, this App Interactive has specific function on the screen that translates to specific function on the person who is controlling the screen. Different than a game where you click up and a character goes up, or a Financial app where you click transfer funds and funds get transffered from one account to another magically, all while sitting on the couch.
This App is a device control, which controls a device that is therapuetic in nature and has a determined effect on the person controlling it immediately. Not off in some distant financial wonderland or investment opportunity and certainly not just on the screen and within the tablet itself, this interactive has immediate effect with potential fine control to adjust it just right for optimal effect. So the Big question...How do you design that function within the interface to translate to the physical result?
The answer: the Function is the Design.
How do you control with precision to get desired results? How do you connect the user with the function? What should the control look like? Mechanical, Organic, Flat design or what? I have been grinding on this for what seems like a small problem and a small feature, but truth is a small feature to one could be a huge feature to another, enhancing the User Experience right then and there by meeting the user right where he is at, in the moment.
So I tried to see the function through the lens of the design when I needed to see the design through the lens of the function. The function is the design, the buttons and levers and clickers we design into these apps must be indicitave of what can be done which will determine the design of the apparatus and potentially enahnce the usability of the device. Nuff' said!