Creativity followed by Innovation

I very much agree with what Matt said previously. Although I knew what both words meant, I decided to go ahead and wikipedia them just to see what "the internet" had to say. According to the wiki article, creativity means "the ability to generate innovative ideas and manifest them from thought into reality." It seems as though the two are so closely related they are in each others definitions. In fact, the definition makes it out as though one cannot attain one without the other.

Although this may be true, I believe creativity is only the thought of something, and innovation is applying that thought into action. Comparing the two is like trying to compare the appropriate steps to do a task. For example: in order to eat, you must chew before you swallow (or I would hope so). Just like in order to manifest original ideas, one must be creative, and then innovative. It's hard to explain, but hopefully everyone reading this gets what I am talking about.

It should not be creativity vs. innovation, but creativity followed by innovation.

Creativity "Complimenting" Innovation

I don't see it as being creativity vs innovation but creativity helping innovation. The two don't compete with one another, they much more compliment one another. Being creative is introducing something new and original and being innovative is merely the same. What really grabs people's attention are new things. If its barely old or really old its still old and the new is what grabs and attracts attention. You want someone to always look at your site, do something new that they have to come to you for. Create something that will cause someone to want to compete with you. Leading to new creativity and innovation.

Apple created the iphone which was the first true touch screen phone with fingers instead of a stylus. It revolutionized the cell phone market and created a new genre for smartphones. It was a creative and innovative idea that demolished all other cell phones in terms of features and performance and styling. Now companies are trying to compete and become more creative and innovative than apple was. It creates a very competitive market for consumers and benefits the consumers. The most popular price for the high-performance touch screen phones are $200. Not many companies jump over that line seeing as it is a good number to attract buyers and still generate profit. All this is due to creativity and innovation by one company generation more creativity and innovation from another company to benefit the consumers.

This Week's Assignment

Before you do anything, blog about creativity vs. innovation and how they contribute to digital design. Then do the following:

Read Marcel Duchamp's "The Creative Act":
You can find it all over the internet... Marcel Duchamp wrote an essay called "The Creative Act" There is a copy on this page:  http://www.iaaa.nl/cursusAA&AI/duchamp.html

Watch:
Charles Leadbeater on Innovation:  http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/charles_leadbeater_on_innovation.html

Resource Depletion: The Result of Poor Technological Interfacing

I found Don Norman's essay "Being Analog" to be incredibly interesting and applicable to the problems of modern life, and particularly human impact on the climate.  When I read the paper, I found myself considering the definition of 'efficiency' and how it applied to the now dangerously accelerated consumption of our world's resources.  The questions present a new moral dimension to the world of design.

When efficiency is greatly accelerated on one end of a process, it seems to be lost in another part of a greater process.  The efficiency lost may be irrelevant when considering only a small part of the life of an object; in this case, production.  In the long run this unbalance has revealed itself.

Overproduction of a systematically generated and adaptable product is meant to fit the rigidity technology to the whim-prone, accident-prone, analog nature of human beings.  In the United States we can buy and use resources in various wasteful and ridiculous ways, and technology has deliberately made this possible.  Incredible efficiency in production, without efficiency in consumption, ends up using the systematic waste of resources as a way to more conveniently interface technology with its human application.

By not designing every product's purpose from start to end, but instead creating standardized, mass produced products, efficiency is gained in production, but it can be lost equally in distribution and consumption.

This puts a responsibility on designers of not only the products and their methods of production, but the designers of the systems of their attainment and distribution.  One of our new responsibilities as designers is to consider ways to combat the imbalance of mass production and consumption, and its symptoms.

One solution is to find ways to make our 'artifacts' more valuable, complex, flexible in use, and durable in themselves--relying on making the product more useful to humans rather than 'making-up' for quality with abundance and interchangeability.

The Digital Age

The reading had compelling and relevant topics about the times we live and our profession. It is important to think about how technology affects us especially as we enter a digital profession, and a world that is becoming increasingly digitalized as we speak. The differences between man and machine are quite apparent in our day and age. However, there are theories that explore the possibility that one day machines my be indistinguishable from humans. If for example, your were to place a human brain and a computer programmed to responded and act like a human brain, in a box and asked them the same questions, and both answered exactly the same how can you tell the difference between man and machine. As technology and the processing power of machines grows exponentially, every so many years, the ability for machines to replicate human traits becomes increasingly of a reality.

Perhaps this connection between machines can be felt even now. As the author suggest machines have caused humans to become increasingly meticulous about their, work, looks, and every day life. A connection that can be made between something organic that humans have made into to a mechanical process, is one that is the most important for human survival. That connection is food processing. In America there are thousands of cattle ranches with millions of cows that are treated as a number in a computer system. Just like the customers that eat their processed meat. It is no longer about what is healthy for human consumption it is now about how fast food can be produced and how fast it can be consumed. Our entire world is about how fast things and be transferred and consumed and how efficiently those things can be done. Computers and the digital age we live in has created an entirely new human experience in the way that we communicate and interact with each other.

Digital Analog

The issue on if we are digital or analog beings is interesting but we are analog for the most part. I say for the most part because I don't think we can say we are absolutely one way or the other. Humans are emotional, calculating and forever changing, but cant we say the same about computers/machines (minus emotional). Computer technologies have grown and will continue to grow until the end of them (or us). To most we are in control of our technologies but to me I believe that they are almost involuntarily under there control, is it possible at this point in our lifes to survive without technology? I dont think so, machines make our food, get us to work, and even tell us if our baby in the other room is ok or not, how can we survive without it??

Relevance of the Shannon Weaver Model

The Shannon Weaver model is a very old way of showing how information is communicated electronically. There is a sender, a message, and a receiver. There are other variables involved (like noise and channel), but these are somewhat obsolete if you're using it to compare to electronic communication in this age of technology.

It is a very old model, and it doesn't cover all means of electronic communication anymore with the rise of the internet and mobile applications. However, that doesn't make it completely irrelevant to designers. One could even argue that there are still concrete senders and receivers with information transmitted through websites and applications. Regardless of whether or not the sender meant for the individual to receive it, the information was still sent and received. It just lies digital "purgatory" until someone comes along and receives it.

Things get a little hazy when considering how the internet allows us to access information whenever we want. This diminishes the effectiveness of the Shannon Weaver model as it applies to our world today. Still, it is important for us to understand the model because it gives us a foundation for other more effective models of our time.

Visually Communicating & the Shannon-Weaver model

Claude Shannon, a scientist for Bell Telephone Company, developed a formula for telephone signal transmission. Warren Weaver then applied the primary concepts of the formula into interpersonal communication, thus creating the Shannon-Weaver model. The most important concept to take away from the Shannon-Weaver model is that the message that’s transmitted may not be the same message that’s received. This uncertainty that occurs during the delivery of a message is called information entropy.

This link illustrates the Shannon-Weaver model:
http://www.shkaminski.com/Classes/images/Shannon-Weaver%20Model.gif

Visual designers face many problems while trying to create a strong visual message. I separate them into three categories that stem from the Shannon-Weaver model. They are listed below.

•Comprehension Problems: Before the message has been generated, all you have is an information source, or facts. The interpreter of the facts could have simply misinterpreted the facts. That means your effort to visually solve a problem is flawed before its inception. The same is true with the opposite end of the model. The person who is receiving the message just may not “get it”.

•Transmitter Problems: You could have a strong message, but deliver it the wrong way. If you’re selling a quality product, would you really want to print it on cardboard paper?

•External Problems (Noise): You could have done everything perfectly, but things beyond your control could interfere with the message being delivered the way that you intend. Imagine sending a beautiful mailer to constituents, asking them to vote for a candidate. What if the postal worker had to deliver the mailers during a storm, and they got to the constituents damp, dirty and wrinkly?

These are just a sampling of situations you have to think about while designing and communicating.

Digital vs. Analog

From the start Don Norman brings up the point that we, as humans, do not belong in a world of technology. Humans are ever changing and evolving while machines are precise and cold with constant need of human repair. While the opposite worlds attract like magnets, they are becoming too tightly stuck together, hindering the natural human instincts we once knew so well. We have created a world not like the one we know by nature and as it grows we become more involved in it.

There is no doubt that technology is extremely useful. For example this class requires so much reliance on machines alone. Writing on the blog with computers, the students' transportation to class/school, and the use of a screen in class for the students to look to for reference. It's everywhere, making our lives easier all the time. It's not until people start to completely rely on technology for things we could otherwise do ourselves that it starts to become obvious we are hurting ourselves. Designers that understand this could help people find the middle ground. Technology that only aids and does not complete every given task we face. There must be a gray area where people can control their use of technology rather than drown in it.

Is technology evolving faster then we are?

It doesn't take long for the latest and greatest computer that you just bought to become outdated. With the rate technology is improving we're all going to be left behind pretty soon. Society can't change into digital human beings and digital technology sure isn't going to go back to analog. So when do we realize what we're doing to ourselves?

As designers we need to be aware of our analog audience and make the user experience as easy as possible. We need to make the digital world more flexible to meet the needs of our audience. Ideally a designer should be able to find a perfect balance between analog and digital, but that balance is different for each person who experiences the end product. Who do you make your target audience so you can satisfy the most people?

It is easy to see through the generations that not all people have been able to keep up with digital technology. Generations who grew up without a computer being a standard piece of technology have a harder time adapting and then keeping up with the progressions. There has to come a point in time when people get fed up with constantly having to keep up with technology.

Shannon-Weaver Model

The Shannon-Weaver model has been adopted into social sciences such as teaching and psychology. The model, regarding digital media, in theory should have worked out well because of the simplistic design of the model. I do agree with Adam about how the model has become less relevant in the in the modern day with the advancement in computers. The model also loses ground because of all the different ways people today communicate with each other, it is not just emails anymore other ways to send information has developed.

The model, if updated, could make more sense for the digital media age now. However, the model would work wonders in policy issues and the government. It would help with communication problems and be a more effective way of communication.

Shannon-Weaver

Shannon-Weaver’s model set the foundation for all types of career fields today. It is important for designers to understand this basic concept of how electronic communication and/or non-electronic communication work. I have two examples:

First, I am a Medical Illustrator who electronically and/or non-electronically communicates complex medical and scientific information. One wrong interpretation concept can effect a falsify information for others. Therefore, as sender, I have to have the basic biology knowledge, and I have to convey the concepts in a meaningful, aesthetic, and understandable manner to the receivers through the use of both the computer and the traditional mediums.

Second, as a Cosmetologist, consultation (non-electronic communication) is key understanding of what the clients’ need in order to perform the proper service on them. If the client and I don’t have the basic understanding of the communication, the effect of the haircut or hair color will be a disaster and can even damage the clients’ hair.

Humans verses Computers

Technology has come far but at a cost. Even though computers are less than a century old we have abused them and become slaves of technology. Humans and machines do have complimentary talents but are also flawed because of the interaction between the two. In my opinion, computers have made our lives easier but have also hindered our ability to think in the process. If we opt to seek the assistance of a computer for the answer we will end up suffering in other areas.

Since computers are programmed by human beings, they will only do what you tell them to do. To a certain extent computers are dumb because without our assistance to help them function they would be of no help. A computer is a tool made to help us communicate our thoughts through the help of technology but instead it has replaced our ability to think for ourselves. The article speaks of generations growing upon generations in knowledge and may take years to be a well educated citizen. People abuse technology and at the rate we're going future generations will not become well educated citizens because they will be unable to think for themselves.

Shannon Weaver Model

When reading about the Shannon Weaver Model I thought that actually seeing what happens with the information you create is important to the designer. All designers should have to learn what actually happens to what you create so have a better understanding of what you can actually do. One article I found about this method applied it to the way you actually speak as well (http://stevefournier01.tripod.com/hist/hist-6.html). A lot of different things go through this process so the designer should be able to understand.

I think designers should have a clear understanding of what happens to the information, However I do not think they need to have in depth knowledge about the subject. The basic way of using the Shannon Weaver Model will help the designer see where their design ends up from where it started.

Communication Model

Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver were two engineers who developed a model that was designed to maximize an efficient way to transmit electrical signals. The original idea behind the model was to have these electronic signals travel from one location to a destination point. This model has defined communications as the sender/receiver model.

Phone calls, text messages, e-mails, etc. are all forms of communication. Each uses the Shannon-Weaver model, which includes a sender and a receiver. This model conveys a basic concept of how communication takes place.

It is important for designers to understand the Shannon-Weaver model because it is the concept of how electronic communication works. Whether or not we use the Shannon-Weaver model today, others who have created new models that allow electronic signals to travel in a much faster period of time, referenced the Shannon-Weaver model.

It is important for designers to understand the Shannon-Weaver model, just as it is important for doctors to understand basic principles of biology. This model set a foundation for where we are today.

Shannon-Weaver Model

The Shannon-Weaver Model seems like such an obvious theory, so-much-so that I feel it's irrelevant. I agree with Matt that there's always going to be a sender and receiver of information, and also agree with Adam that it's pointless.

Maybe it's because my generation grew up in the digital age, where we're constantly surrounded by the that big red Easy Button. Perhaps "pointless" is a strong word but do we need to know much more than where the information is from and where it needs to go? We have an objective, we execute, hopefully we'll avoid any whisper down the lane-type distractions, and we're done.

The Ever-Increasing Pace of Change

One Section in Don Norman’s article Being Analog really hit home. In the section “The Ever-Increasing Pace of Change” he talks about the quickness of change throughout our society. From work to sports to education, one is no longer able to pick up on their surrounds merely by observing and exploring. He talks about the amount of education that is required today. No longer can one simply graduate high school and expect to be successful. Businesses will rarely consider you today for a job if you don’t have a college degree. And speaking directly from experience, even an under-graduate degree won’t cut it in today’s society.

Norman states “Scientists no longer are able to keep up with advances even within their own field, let alone in all of science. As a result, we are in the age of specialization, where it is all one person can do to keep up with the pace in some restricted domain of endeavor. But with nothing but specialists, how can we bridge the gaps?”

I chose to go back to grad school because I noticed that businesses need specialist. You cannot be just a graphic or web designer and expect to get a job. You have to have a specialized skill that will set you apart from the crowds. Recently while I was job hunting, I noticed that most jobs expect you to be able to handle a large number of responsibilities on top of being some sort of digital specialist. This is a frustrating realization, but this is the reality of our time. With digital replacing everything that was once analog and simple, we, as designers, need to bust our asses to stay afloat in this ruthless world.

Working in such a digital realm, it is crucial to understand the world around us. This forces us out of our comfort zones as analog beings it pushes us into this new territory. Two quotes from Norman sums this new territory up: “The real problem with being digital is that it implies a kind of slavery to accuracy…” and “People do best with signals and information that fit the way they perceive and think, which means analogous to the real world. Machines do best with signals and information that is suited for the way they function, which means digital, rigid, precise.” I feel that designers are forced to become digital beings, even if we are not completely comfortable stepping away from a more analog world. We must learn to adapt this new way of thinking and living or else we will not be able to survive in the world of design.

Analog Beings in a Digital World

Todays world has undergone more changes in the last hundred years than the last one thousand years before it. With the sudden explosion of technology, humankind has ushered in an era where technology has defined nearly everything we do. Whether we want it to or not. Computers are by nature digital creations that operate by rigid guidelines, precise mathematics, and are built from materials that are as unbending as the machines themselves. Quite the opposite of humans. We think in more much general terms that can withstand small levels of error without any disruption. We are inherently creative and abstract problem solvers.

So how do flexible, analog beings learn to live in a society that is riddled with these calculating, unforgiving machines? Are current situation has show us that we cannot continue on our current path. Something has to change because right now we are being forced to live and think in ways that are unnatural. The article had a wonder solution in that we need to create a better, more natural way of interacting with computers. This is the challenge we face as designers. How do we make our users experience more "human like"?

When reading about the Shannon-Weaver model it seemed important for designers because it showed how the communication process may have once worked. After reading into it further though, it became clear that the model has become less relevant today because of computers. Due to the convergence of information and communications, and the current multimedia environment, communication no longer takes place in a linear fashion. This means that one can no longer distinguish who is the sender and who is the receiver; instances where this can occur would be an online bulletin board, blog, etc.

Being able to access information from almost anywhere on the internet has also dulled the importance of the Shannon-Weaver model. Since one can simply access information from anywhere on the web, how can one be considered the sender of information? Especially when all they did was gather it from a different source? So really, in the end of it all, I do not fully believe it is important for designers to understand the Shannon-Weaver model. Since current technologies have impacted it's relevance so much, I personally find it pointless to understand, but thats just my opinion.

The Shannon-Weaver Model

The Shannon-Weaver Model is a complex design that seems easy from a user's perspective. How often do you think about how your cellphone just called another cellphone, on a different carrier, landline, or internationally? It's easy for us to do but how does it all happen in real-time no matter how far apart in the world users are. Essentially there is a sender and a receiver for information. But between them are transmitters and receivers that make it all happen "behind the scenes."

A new communication model needs to be written when new forms of communication are created. There used to be telephone cables used as internet lines, now we have Fios cables for that to increase speed and not tie up other lines of communication. We used to always need to be plugged into a network, now we can do it wirelessly. New forms of communication require new lines of communication to carry more data, faster, and more efficiently. i.e. FaceTime on the iPhone 4. It needs a wireless network to do so, but will something take the place of wi-fi so we can make face-to-face video calls whenever we want regardless of a wi-fi connection? No matter the advancements that will happen with technology, there will always need to be a sender and receiver.