HCI is about people, interactions and system interfaces. First, people do what people are good at, such as observation, interpreting, determining what is important, and making the final decisions. There are situations where human decisions need to be assisted by data visualizations. Secondly, the computer does what it is good at, which is repetitive tasks and routine. Finally, collectively, people will make better decisions or influence each other on their decisions. But neither people (individual or communities) nor computers are forced to do what the other does better. HCI strives to integrate the two so they can compliment each other to achieve more productivity.

There are quite a few challenges in applying universal design in the context of HCI in order to provide the formative insight needed to design interactive products that can be experienced by the mass in different contexts. The distinctive characteristics of these products may be identified by briefly considering the changes in the socio-technical paradigm; from the early days of computing to the 21st century human interfaces intended to provide a gateway into the world of distributed information paradigm; the scope and context of use of the computer (hard to define what a computer is these days, what is the computing power needed in order to be called a computer),;as it becomes a mediating tool for increasing different types of human (both business and personal) activities.

In another short 5-10 years, mini or micro computing devices will be everywhere as medical and consumer devices becoming mass. While HCI is still in its infancy, some HCI practitioners are trying to break away from common conception of an “average” user interacting with a laptop in the office to get work done, and to engage in a conscious effort to develop new understanding, methodologies and tools, in order to understand the following:

How emerging new distributed computational paradigms will create new challenges for HCI designs? How do we research behavior that does not exist today?
How new interaction /interface design can be effectively used to serve an increasing range of system-mediated human activities?
When does interactions / interface design cross the line and becoming service design? Interactive artifacts are now being introduced into service settings in a larger degree.
How new visceral interactions that are driven by interactive paradigms rather than user needs emerge, beyond the imagination of the novice users?
What are the emerging threats to privacy that force us to rethink some fundamental concepts in HCI when attackers, ranging from the curious to the highly malicious, might abuse or subvert the system?

Being the dean of a design school is no easy job today. Design schools are struggling to serve three masters: the student, the industry and society. The last one is a new one as generally designers have now come to a consensus that designs for social change is a part of the design agenda. With limited time and resources, design educators need to define a strategy for the D-schools’ future. Is it to teach the person/artist to create?  Or about training craftsmen (both traditionally and with software tools) to supply to the industry? Or to develop thinkers to be able to solve wicked problems?

Three Things They Don’t Teach You In Design Schools

Design education is becoming so broad that educators are finding it difficult to balance breath and depth, not deep enough in some areas and not general enough to cover the ever-expanding design practices. I am afraid we have not come to a conclusion as to what design education should be like and are simply continuing to train the design thinkers of tomorrow in the techniques and tools from the past.

Here are three lessons from industrial design on engineering desirability that are borrowed from sociology. After all, industrial design is about getting humans to buy, use and love products. If you sent your ID designers to talk to the dating experts (generally not free), here’s what you’ll get:

1/ A few mmms here and there can make a big difference. According to the Journal of Psychopharmacology, when we’re drunk, guys look cuter because we don’t notice the asymmetry of their face. The biological explanation: A symmetric guy is less likely to have genetic defects and makes a better mate. Male or female, the sex appeal lies mainly in face shape. One example according to paleontologists, the dimensions of the region between the mouth and the eyebrows are crucial in determining how attractive a man’s face appears to the opposite sex. For product design, there is specific asymmetry that determines the attractiveness of a product, and they may not comply with human factors or ergonomic principles, but what’s more important? An attractive boyfriend or an ergonomic boyfriend? Not sure if people know it, your nose should be part of foreplay, not only in sex but also in product design and marketing.

2/ The power of smell. Smell is a relatively new element outside of the personal care and cosmetic industry. Here’s an example from the work of the Smell and Taste Research Foundation based out of Chicago, the blend of lavender and pumpkin turns guys on. Do you remember the smell of leather (real leather) in a new car, it didn’t last very long but it felt so good. My favorite is the smell from an Abercrombie store. Every time I bought something, the smell is there and that reminds me of my fun college days.  I wonder why my iTouch, MacBook, Blackberry or Canon Powershot don’t have any smells on them; particularly because it is something I carry all the time. Wouldn’t it be great if my Blackberry had a unique smell that corresponded to and changed according to who was on the other end of the line? Another million-dollar idea here.

3/ Colours are always sexy. Why aren’t your products colourful? According to research, men are attractive to women who wear a particular colour and find them more desirable. Pantone can make us more desirable to the opposite sex (email me and I will design your personal colour mood board). These are cultural specific naturally. Why red for Valentine’s Day? That’s a colour associate with romance and the primal instincts that links the color to sex. That’s also the reason why the butts of some animals turn red when they are ready to mate. Look at the red colour interior of Bugatti Veyron! It is not just about using colours, but using it strategically.

Here’s a simple test, have your girlfriend or boyfriend try on different colours of sweaters from J.Crew and you will see why he/she looks particular attractive in certain colours. There is research to show which colours work better when creating desirability. But 90% of products out there were not designed with that in mind. More often than not, someone randomly decides on what colour should be used. If you want your product to be sexy, spend more time with the Pantone guide and your customers. Colours can always add magic.