Is DevOps Driving the Future of UX Design?

Courtesy of Electric Cloud

Alan Cooper, the Father of Visual Basic, had the full attention of the entire class during his “Design Leadership” workshop. In the calm reassuring tone of a wise patriarch he said, “Design is not so much a design issue as a power struggle.” At that moment, everyone began recalling experiences where their design process required more effort in exercising influence, diplomacy, and collaboration than anticipated. There was a shared solemn realization that the skills necessary to produce high quality design for increasingly complex, interactive products were going to require us to develop a broader awareness of product management, engineering, and executive imperatives. It is enthusing how the designers world is expanding in the form of a broader and deeper collaboration, and this results from the accelerated pace at which software is delivered.

The Tale of Two Tribes

The DevOps movement that started in 2011 tells the story of not only how development and operation teams learned to collaborate better in terms of releasing software updates more efficiently, but also the realities of strenuous troubleshooting through all-nighters and sacrificed weekends that had taken its toll on individuals who knew deep down there had to be a better way. Quite literally, it is a classic tale of neighboring tribes that blamed each other for their hardships until finally realizing they in fact shared common objectives, just from different perspectives. As human nature goes, we change either motivated by inspiration, or by pain. Alas more often than not, we change because our pains are too great to endure any longer. The DevOps movement is a combination of both.

So why would a UX/UI designer be so interested in this movement? It’s because the rapidly evolving landscape of software delivery is influencing the current user experience design practices. Moreover, when designers want to deliver a superior design outcome towards successful user adoption, how departments work together critically matters. In striving to achieve the goal of adoption, my past experience has repeatedly taken me down a path to better understanding which influences either constrain or facilitate leading design towards this business outcome.

Market imperatives are compelling us to increase the velocity of designing the user experience for complex software in step with Agile, which is now evolving into Continuous Delivery practices. We designers have to not only adapt, but evolve proactively to continue leading with creative decisions and transform the “power struggle” into the “power of collaboration,” the same way development and operation teams are achieving this in the DevOps culture.

Cooks in the Kitchen

Which designer hasn’t thought there are too many cooks in the kitchen? Makers of software, from executives to system administrators, are more aware and generally more informed than ever before in what is a “superior” user experience. Withstanding that we know design by committee doesn’t produce good results, designers of all levels and roles face the reality that the number of people who have influence in the design process has grown, and continues to do so. In the power struggle of design, struggling the hardest is not the solution. Insightfully orchestrating whom to bring into the design process, when and for how long, is the new skill for making the best design decisions at the accelerated pace of software releases. For vectors of influence to pull in the same direction, a common vision, an understanding of the design framework, and the standard of output, are the essential aspects to collaborating effectively.

Designers can lead by:

• Documenting the main characteristics of the user experience that will guide collaborators in making aligned design decisions.


• Publishing to a Wiki the progress of design discussions in reference to the PM’s problem statement and the feature in development.


• Gathering feedback proactively through collaboration and testing tools from designated design partners inside the organization.

So far, the standard practices in user experience design have led the entire software industry to be familiar with the notions of empathy, idea validation, research and testing. In addition to empathy, there is another state of mind to keenly develop as designers: situational awareness. First, we need to be aware that we are immersed in the transformative process of how software gets into the hands of users, which is in alignment with the user’s specific needs. We need to have awareness of the speed at which the competitiveness of the market requires responsive improvement to be delivered continuously.

We need to have the awareness to go deeper into understanding the connections between the product and its users. And, we need to have awareness of engineering team dynamics. Engineers in both development and operations teams evolved into collaborating more efficiently by first becoming more aware of their respective needs and objectives. The very same applies to designers and product managers, as their circles of influence are intersecting more and more in determining direction and improvements.

Dissolving Silos

Many organizations do not benefit from centralized design leadership. The values of design are then too easily subject to being diluted or muddled into mediocrity. In the absence of design strategies aligned with short and long-term business objectives, decisions are made that preclude from developing a cohesive user experience across products, marketing, and branding. This is a manifestation of siloed teams, which of course results from siloed mentalities. When product management, marketing, engineering, and designers operate within the myopia of a task-driven approach, the intent to make design a competitive edge becomes elusive. To achieve design at a differentiating level against competitors, the path to follow is paved with the same principles as in DevOps: collaboration, awareness, and alignment of objectives.

When clear design objectives are articulated into values and characteristics of the product then all teams who collaborate around design have mindshare. Discussions cut incisively to the core of design challenges and get solved much faster without the drag of a struggle. As silos dissolve, design velocity and capacity invariably increase in the same way development teams and operation teams increased their capacity to deliver better software faster. The next frontier is to do so towards a higher quality of user experience, and most of all, a higher accuracy of execution, and alignment with user needs.

Evolving Cooperation

DevOps practitioners believe it is not about software as much as it is about communication and collaboration. It is collaboration between the two entities in the business that are probably the most critical: the development organization and the operations organization. Today, it is common knowledge that design-centric organizations outperform those that are not. Predictably, business leaders in the enterprise are now making a place at the table for the design function to have its own seat. This is expanding conversations for making overarching design decisions at levels executives, directors, and managers are now getting familiar.

Organizations will produce superior design by:

• Executive leadership having a clear long-term design strategy that defines the working relationships between departments.


• Senior management establishing team collaboration for design work to convert into specific business outcomes.


• PM and design team members operating from common product and design objectives measured in quarterly performances.

Veterans of the software industry witnessed how Agile transformed the way they think; DevOps the way they collaborate; and now with the teaming of product development and designers, the way they define their software.

Kai Brunner is Principle Designer for continuous delivery enterprise software at Electric Cloud.

Moog Music Recreates a Trio of Its Legendary Modular Synths

Moog Music

The cosmic commandos at Moog Music are bringing back some classic synthesizers from the golden age of electronic music. These aren’t just any keyboards, mind you, but three Cadillacs of bleep-bloop, the System 35, System 55, and Model 15 first developed in the 1970s. Moog Music will be recreating these storied synths using the original designs and making them available on a very limited basis—with prices to match.

Moog took the first step on this epic endeavor last summer when it recreated the Emerson Moog Modular System, a near-perfect replica of Keith Emerson’s Moog, complete with the massive patch bays and spaghetti of cables. It wasn’t some digital look-alike, either—it was based on the original schematics and hand-built using old-school manufacturing techniques. That instrument (which you can still custom order for $150,000) appeared at the Moogfest 2014 music festival.

Armed with the knowledge gained from that experience, the Moog Music engineers have decided to recreate three amazing machines from the 1970s.

If you’ve never seen the System 35, System 55, or Model 15—you really can’t miss them, they’re beasts—you’ve almost certainly heard them. These are the same machines rock keyboardists used to paint the hazy, space-prog otherscapes of the 1970s. Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Yes, Rush, Brian Eno and Tangerine Dream all used them. But they also made Stevie saucier and Herbie hotter. And, being open-minded adults viewing the history of music through the long lens of time, we can freely admit that Moog’s modular synths made for some pretty kick-ass, adventurous disco records.

Moog Music’s engineers pulled out the original circuit board films to print the new boards, then fired up their soldering irons to make these new editions. Since these are big, true analog devices built by humans, they are both rare and expensive.

Only 55 units of the System 55 will be offered, and each one will cost $35,000. Moog will make 35 copies of the System 35, for $22,000 a pop. For the smaller Model 15, Moog is making 150 of them, each priced at $10,000. Moog is also building some optional extras to go along with the new synths: a five-octave duophonic keyboard, a sequencer extension cabinet, and a dual 960 Sequential Controller for the 35 and 55.

The silk kimonos, embroidered capes, and sequined uni-suits are not included, but absolutely necessary to compliment the package. Or at least a nice plate for your curry.

Finally, here’s a new video about modular sound synthesis the folks at Moog Music shared with WIRED:

Why Is It So Difficult to Land a Rocket?

After successfully launching a resupply capsule, the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket attempted to land on a barge in the ocean. As you can see, the landing attempt was not successful. Really, should we be surprised? I’m surprised the rocket was so close to actually landing at all. Landing a rocket like this is quite difficult.

So, why is this rocket difficult to land? Before I give an explanation, let me just give a reminder. I’m a physicist and not a rocket scientist. I am going to talk about the general physics principles and not technical details of the rocket landing.

Lunar Lander Is Easy

Yes, we landed several spacecraft on the moon with the lunar lander in the Apollo missions.

Image: NASA. The Lunar Lander for the Apollo 16 mission.

Actually, this there is also the famous arcade game called Lunar Lander. Here is an online version if you want to play it. The goal is to change the angle and thrust for a lander to safely land on the moon.

Screenshot from Lunar Lander game on PhET.

Ok, the real Lunar Lander game isn’t always so easy – but it’s easier than landing the SpaceX Falcon. What’s the difference? The lunar lander has a rocket at the bottom, but it rotates with other thrusters on the side. The Falcon 9 has a rocket engine on the bottom and it uses this rocket for both thrust AND rotation. This makes the Falcon 9 a bit harder to maneuver (also the lunar lander was on, you know, the moon – where the gravitational field is smaller).

Three Motions for a Rocket

The Falcon 9 rocket can do three different things with the main thruster:

• Vertical acceleration: this is useful for things such as slowing down the rocket’s decent so it doesn’t, you know…crash.


• Horizontal acceleration: used to change the rocket’s horizontal velocity. This is very useful for changing the horizontal position of the rocket so that it can land on a barge in the ocean.


• Angular acceleration: this changes the rotational motion of the spacecraft about its center of mass. This would be useful if you wanted to make sure the rocket landed in a vertical position.

Maybe this will make more sense with a quick example. Suppose the Falcon rocket is coming in for a landing and it has some horizontal velocity. In order to slow down for a safe landing, the rocket must thrust in the opposite direction. Here’s what happens.

In order to accelerate to the right, the rocket angles a little bit to point to the right. However, since this thrust force doesn’t act in a line that goes through the center of mass, there is a torque on the space craft that changes its rotational motion. Add on top of this the fact that you have to also change the thrust value in order to accelerate the rocket up and down also.

It’s a pretty tough problem to land a rocket like this. Actually, you can try something like this yourself. Get a broom or long stick and head outside where you won’t hit anything. Now try to walk while balancing the broom on your hand just by placing the end of the broom on your hand. How do you stop walking? Here is an example.

Image: Rhett Allain

Yes, in this example I did indeed stop the broom and it didn’t fall over. However, with the rocket you need to both stop at AND keep it vertical at the end.

Why Not Use a Different Rocket Design?

This is pure speculation, but let me consider two rocket designs. First, there is the Falcon 9. Second, there is a flatter design that would be easier to land. It would look something like the the lunar lander.

This “Easy Lander” would be much easier to control. First, it isn’t tall and skinny like the Falcon 9. The center of mass is much closer to the main thrusters so that they wouldn’t exert as much torque to change the rotational motion. On top of that, there are multiple thrusters so that you could vary the thrust to create zero torque if you wanted. Finally, this design also has side thrusters. You could change the horizontal motion of the Easy Lander without even rotating the spacecraft. Seems like a better rocket, right?

Although the Easy Lander would be easier to land, it wouldn’t be as good as the Falcon 9. The Falcon 9 is not designed to land on a barge in the ocean. No, it is designed to launch a payload into orbit. That is it’s primary function, a function that the Easy Lander would do a very poor job at. Rockets are tall and skinny like they are so that it will have a lower air drag on it as it accelerates through the atmosphere. The smaller the cross sectional area of the front of the rocket, the lower the air resistance. If the Easy Lander were to launch a payload into space, it would need MUCH more fuel to compensate for the larger air resistance. With more fuel, you would need bigger rockets (for the increased fuel mass) which would need even more fuel. When launching a rocket, every little bit of mass matters.

Of course, that’s just speculation about the shape of a rocket. Either way, I think we can all agree that making a rocket launch a payload into orbit and then safely land is a pretty difficult thing to do.

Moog Music Recreates a Trio of Its Legendary Modular Synths

Moog Music

The cosmic commandos at Moog Music are bringing back some classic synthesizers from the golden age of electronic music. These aren’t just any keyboards, mind you, but three Cadillacs of bleep-bloop, the System 35, System 55, and Model 15 first developed in the 1970s. Moog Music will be recreating these storied synths using the original designs and making them available on a very limited basis—with prices to match.

Moog took the first step on this epic endeavor last summer when it recreated the Emerson Moog Modular System, a near-perfect replica of Keith Emerson’s Moog, complete with the massive patch bays and spaghetti of cables. It wasn’t some digital look-alike, either—it was based on the original schematics and hand-built using old-school manufacturing techniques. That instrument (which you can still custom order for $150,000) appeared at the Moogfest 2014 music festival.

Armed with the knowledge gained from that experience, the Moog Music engineers have decided to recreate three amazing machines from the 1970s.

If you’ve never seen the System 35, System 55, or Model 15—you really can’t miss them, they’re beasts—you’ve almost certainly heard them. These are the same machines rock keyboardists used to paint the hazy, space-prog otherscapes of the 1970s. Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Yes, Rush, Brian Eno and Tangerine Dream all used them. But they also made Stevie saucier and Herbie hotter. And, being open-minded adults viewing the history of music through the long lens of time, we can freely admit that Moog’s modular synths made for some pretty kick-ass, adventurous disco records.

Moog Music’s engineers pulled out the original circuit board films to print the new boards, then fired up their soldering irons to make these new editions. Since these are big, true analog devices built by humans, they are both rare and expensive.

Only 55 units of the System 55 will be offered, and each one will cost $35,000. Moog will make 35 copies of the System 35, for $22,000 a pop. For the smaller Model 15, Moog is making 150 of them, each priced at $10,000. Moog is also building some optional extras to go along with the new synths: a five-octave duophonic keyboard, a sequencer extension cabinet, and a dual 960 Sequential Controller for the 35 and 55.

The silk kimonos, embroidered capes, and sequined uni-suits are not included, but absolutely necessary to compliment the package. Or at least a nice plate for your curry.

Finally, here’s a new video about modular sound synthesis the folks at Moog Music shared with WIRED:

Why Is It So Difficult to Land a Rocket?

After successfully launching a resupply capsule, the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket attempted to land on a barge in the ocean. As you can see, the landing attempt was not successful. Really, should we be surprised? I’m surprised the rocket was so close to actually landing at all. Landing a rocket like this is quite difficult.

So, why is this rocket difficult to land? Before I give an explanation, let me just give a reminder. I’m a physicist and not a rocket scientist. I am going to talk about the general physics principles and not technical details of the rocket landing.

Lunar Lander Is Easy

Yes, we landed several spacecraft on the moon with the lunar lander in the Apollo missions.

Image: NASA. The Lunar Lander for the Apollo 16 mission.

Actually, this there is also the famous arcade game called Lunar Lander. Here is an online version if you want to play it. The goal is to change the angle and thrust for a lander to safely land on the moon.

Screenshot from Lunar Lander game on PhET.

Ok, the real Lunar Lander game isn’t always so easy – but it’s easier than landing the SpaceX Falcon. What’s the difference? The lunar lander has a rocket at the bottom, but it rotates with other thrusters on the side. The Falcon 9 has a rocket engine on the bottom and it uses this rocket for both thrust AND rotation. This makes the Falcon 9 a bit harder to maneuver (also the lunar lander was on, you know, the moon – where the gravitational field is smaller).

Three Motions for a Rocket

The Falcon 9 rocket can do three different things with the main thruster:

• Vertical acceleration: this is useful for things such as slowing down the rocket’s decent so it doesn’t, you know…crash.


• Horizontal acceleration: used to change the rocket’s horizontal velocity. This is very useful for changing the horizontal position of the rocket so that it can land on a barge in the ocean.


• Angular acceleration: this changes the rotational motion of the spacecraft about its center of mass. This would be useful if you wanted to make sure the rocket landed in a vertical position.

Maybe this will make more sense with a quick example. Suppose the Falcon rocket is coming in for a landing and it has some horizontal velocity. In order to slow down for a safe landing, the rocket must thrust in the opposite direction. Here’s what happens.

In order to accelerate to the right, the rocket angles a little bit to point to the right. However, since this thrust force doesn’t act in a line that goes through the center of mass, there is a torque on the space craft that changes its rotational motion. Add on top of this the fact that you have to also change the thrust value in order to accelerate the rocket up and down also.

It’s a pretty tough problem to land a rocket like this. Actually, you can try something like this yourself. Get a broom or long stick and head outside where you won’t hit anything. Now try to walk while balancing the broom on your hand just by placing the end of the broom on your hand. How do you stop walking? Here is an example.

Image: Rhett Allain

Yes, in this example I did indeed stop the broom and it didn’t fall over. However, with the rocket you need to both stop at AND keep it vertical at the end.

Why Not Use a Different Rocket Design?

This is pure speculation, but let me consider two rocket designs. First, there is the Falcon 9. Second, there is a flatter design that would be easier to land. It would look something like the the lunar lander.

This “Easy Lander” would be much easier to control. First, it isn’t tall and skinny like the Falcon 9. The center of mass is much closer to the main thrusters so that they wouldn’t exert as much torque to change the rotational motion. On top of that, there are multiple thrusters so that you could vary the thrust to create zero torque if you wanted. Finally, this design also has side thrusters. You could change the horizontal motion of the Easy Lander without even rotating the spacecraft. Seems like a better rocket, right?

Although the Easy Lander would be easier to land, it wouldn’t be as good as the Falcon 9. The Falcon 9 is not designed to land on a barge in the ocean. No, it is designed to launch a payload into orbit. That is it’s primary function, a function that the Easy Lander would do a very poor job at. Rockets are tall and skinny like they are so that it will have a lower air drag on it as it accelerates through the atmosphere. The smaller the cross sectional area of the front of the rocket, the lower the air resistance. If the Easy Lander were to launch a payload into space, it would need MUCH more fuel to compensate for the larger air resistance. With more fuel, you would need bigger rockets (for the increased fuel mass) which would need even more fuel. When launching a rocket, every little bit of mass matters.

Of course, that’s just speculation about the shape of a rocket. Either way, I think we can all agree that making a rocket launch a payload into orbit and then safely land is a pretty difficult thing to do.

Chocolates Whose Intricate Architecture Is Designed to Tweak Taste Buds

These striking chocolates were created by Japanese design studio Nendo. Akhiro Yoshida

These striking chocolates were created by Japanese design studio Nendo.

Akhiro Yoshida

The idea is to explore texture's role in shaping taste. This bubbly one is dubbed "tubu-tubu." Akhiro Yoshida

The idea is to explore texture's role in shaping taste. This bubbly one is dubbed "tubu-tubu."

Akhiro Yoshida

They all kinda look like they could be promotional items for Interstellar. Akhiro Yoshida

They all kinda look like they could be promotional items for Interstellar.

Akhiro Yoshida

All of the chocolates fit into the same plot: a 26 mm cube. Akhiro Yoshida

All of the chocolates fit into the same plot: a 26 mm cube.

Akhiro Yoshida

Each is named after a different Japanese expression for texture. Akhiro Yoshida

Each is named after a different Japanese expression for texture.

Akhiro Yoshida

Nendo has a history of experimenting with chocolate. These are tiny chocolate paint tubes. Nendo

Nendo has a history of experimenting with chocolate. These are tiny chocolate paint tubes.

Nendo

A line-up of forms. Akhiro Yoshida

A line-up of forms.

Akhiro Yoshida

More eye candy. Akhiro Yoshida

More eye candy.

Akhiro Yoshida

There aren’t many chocolates that are as fun to look at as they are to eat. Then, there aren’t many chocolates made by famous design studios, either.

Renowned Japanese design house Nendo created this singular box of goodies for Maison & Objet, a fancy furniture show in Paris. The idea was to experiment with one of the lesser explored aspects of the chocolate experience: texture.

All nine pieces in the limited-run box are the same type of chocolate, and they all fit within the same 26-millimeter cubic plot. But each has a unique architecture, and thus its own distinct taste. One of the chocolates looks like a clump of Buckyballs. Another is a hollow cube with a corner sliced off. The most aggressive looks like a little plot of spikes fit for a delicious booby trap. Each is named after a different Japanese expression for texture: “tubu-tubu,” “zara-zara,” “goro-goro,” “poki-poki.” Looking at them, you can imagine how one might be a dense mouthful, and how another might seem totally delicate.

The sweets up close. Akhiro Yoshida

This isn’t Nendo’s first foray into unusual edibles. A few years ago they made a box of chocolates in the form of tiny paint tubes. Before that, they created a set of chocolate pencils, which chocolate lovers could “sharpen” onto desserts. Most recently, the studio partnered with Häagen-Dazs to make ice cream cakes that looked like little villages.

These striking chocolates invite us to consider the formal qualities of more familiar treats. There’s the Snickers, the prototypical candy bar, just as solid and straightforward and unambitious as a Nokia phones which borrowed the “candybar” name. There’s the Kit-Kat, designed to be broken apart and consumed one thin finger at time. You’ve got M&Ms, which get shoveled into mouths by the dozens, and the Crunch bar, essentially a big, thin sheet of chocolate to nibble from.

If someone asked you to explain the difference between these snacks, you might default to listing ingredients. This one has nougat, that one has nuts. But on a more fundamental level, all these items too are set apart by their own distinct textures and architectures. They may not be quite as impressive as a chocolate in the form of the Interstellar tesseract, but they’re unique nonetheless. Keep this in mind the time you’re standing in front of a vending machine. It’s not just a bunch of candy bars. It’s a showroom of forms.