10 Questions With John Maeda (S1, Ep1)
An interview with Automattic’s Global Head of Design and Inclusion with thoughts on AI, the latest Design In Tech Report, and his upcoming book.
Editor’s note: This was originally published on LinkedIn.
In technology, the world of design may not seem as glamorous as that of engineers, after all, the latter are the ones seen as building the future. But in reality, it’s a team effort, one that requires the participation of not only the development team, but also designers who care for the aesthetics of an application or hardware and liaise with customers to understand their experiences, interests, wants and desires to develop ways for the product to solve their problems.
For the past five years, Automattic’s Global Head of Computational Design and Inclusion John Maeda has produced his Design in Tech Report, providing a snapshot at his field. He presents his findings at the South by Southwest (SXSW) Interactive Festival to a packed-to-capacity room and after reviewing his latest report, I reached out and invited him to do an interview as part of this new project on LinkedIn which I’m calling “10 Questions” (more after the interview). To my appreciation, he accepted.
- My analysis of the 2019 Design In Tech Report is on my blog.
- You can read the whole report on DesignInTech.Report and on Flipboard.
Below you’ll find my conversation with John Maeda. Some questions and answers have been edited for clarity.
What were the key findings from this year’s report?
Given that the room at SXSW was oversubscribed and there needed to be a special second session to fulfill demand, I guess my personal finding was that it still appears to be relevant. Frankly, I have thought of stopping thinking it might not be that useful anymore — but I told myself that I would stop once it came to be that nobody showed up to hear the report. I’m still surprised when people show up.
Aside from the personal finding that maybe I should keep doing it, this year’s report let me see a few things:
- We are currently overwhelmed by press about AI — so this report doesn’t spend too much time on it. I sifted through roughly 1000 different sources in the year, and I discovered that 30% of them covered AI in some way. I prefer not to give even more attention to AI today I because it’s already getting a lot.
- This report tries to explain the idea of the imbalances we have in the tech world a little differently than before. there is a fantastic set of 4 illustrations by artist Tony Ruth that sets the bar for explaining the difference between inequality, equality, equity, and justice.
- There are many “awesome humans” out there who are doing interesting things to make our lives more livable with technology. In the report I highlight work ranging from the Microsoft Xbox new and beautiful accessible controller all the way to Tega Brain’s Bushwick Analytical project that teaches kids how to use Facebook ad targeting for good.
In the first section of your report, you declare that design is “maturing”: please explain why this is the case versus any other year.
All of the major tech (and financial services) companies have grown their in-house design teams, and all the major consultancies have acquired a lot of creative agency talent. So we are now in the phase of improving the value of design across the board. It’s like we were carbohydrate-loading over the last five, and now it’s time to fully prove that carbs are the right energy source for winning a race.
Why was it important for you to produce this annual report?
I really only produce it because people show up. If people stop showing up, I’ll stop.
Was there anything you noticed within the tech industry that stood out versus other industries with respect to design, i.e. why did you focus on tech versus other industries and are your findings applicable to spaces like automotive, manufacturing, etc.?
I get various help from people, but the bulk of the report is still created by myself. So I regret that I can’t cover more areas — like the environment, accessibility, autonomous vehicles, cryptocurrency, etc. But each year, I can always try to improve — so keep a look out for the 2020 edition!
After five years of producing this report, what has surprised you the most about the progression of design?
I guess what surprised me the most doesn’t have anything to do with the report. I’m thinking a lot about how context-setting changes how information can get read. For example, if you are a designer, and you read the headline of an article that reads as “anti-designer,” then everything you read within the actual article itself will be easily cognitively colored that way. It’s made me think about how any form of popular press in general — with the right kind of incendiary headline — can stir up all kinds of feelings in the people who read it. It’s made me appreciate how I can have my own blogs and say things in my own words when I need to make a point clearer — instead of sensationalized outside of my control.
Are there any new standards that have taken hold in the design and tech world?
I am an unabashed fan of Material Design — as I have highlighted in the report. It’s the best combination of the three kinds of design: classical design, design thinking, and computational design. It’s absolutely free — so it’s easy to love even more.
As you read each report, you notice new design acquisitions by traditional companies: why are traditional companies looking to make these type of acquisitions?
We’re seeing an “echo” with respect to the way that large tech companies were acquiring design agencies — like when Facebook acquired Hot Studio. But it’s now being played out at a local scale with tech startups outside of Silicon Valley getting traction, and then eventually realizing the need to improve the level of experience at scale by acquiring a smaller agency.
You make a bold statement in this year’s report, suggesting that after years of promoting design-led companies, you suggest design shouldn’t be at the forefront, but supportive to other parts of the business — you told an audience at SXSW that “Design isn’t important”. Would you explain that? Why the 180-degree pivot?
I’m getting misquoted on that right now, so thanks for the opportunity to clarify my position.
Teamwork has long been more important than anything else to me. “Engineering-led,” or “Product-led,” or “Marketing-led,” or “Design-led” all imply to some degree the importance of a discipline’s performance over and above the performance of the entire team. I believe that when we place a focus on the customers’ needs and when we work as a team to satisfy their hopes and dreams, then everyone wins together.
In the last three years, each report has focused on three kinds of design: classical, design and computational. What are these and why did you devote a report to each type? Was there a specific reason?
I found that when working with startups and C-level folks at larger companies that the word design meant too many things. So I separated them into three kinds of design:
- Classical design which pertains to the design of objects we use in the physical world,
- Design thinking which pertains to how organizations learn how to collaborate and innovate using ideation methods, and
- Computational design that pertains to any kind of creative activity that involves processors, memory, sensors, actuators, and the network.
At Automattic, your role involves making the company and industry more inclusive. In this year’s report, you state that inclusion is linked to computational design. Why this type but not classical or design?
That’s a great question. Computational design by nature works in a different scale and speed. The unintended consequences of deploying a “bad” app to millions of users can easily be greater than the unintended consequences of a classically crafted chair or a design thinking session. In both classical design and design thinking settings, inclusive design is important. But it’s even more important for computational design because its fruits can easily impact millions of people within the time it takes you to snap your fingers.
What advice would you give to design-focused entrepreneurs and how has your advice been influenced by your time as [researcher at the MIT Media Lab], the former president of the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD), [partner at] Kleiner Perkins, and now at Automattic?
Since the 1990s I have been advocating that artists and designers make the effort to understand computation. Entering the 2000s, I advocated for designers to understand business — and got my MBA to boot. Now I recommend that designers learn how to work with people who are different from themselves. It’s Kat Holmes who got me going in this direction originally, and I appreciate all her mentorship.
You are writing a book entitled “How To Speak Machine”. Please tell us more about what you’ll be explaining and why it’s important to read.
It’s difficult for people who are not trained in computer science to understand what happens in the world of computation. That’s because it’s a completely invisible universe, so the only thing to do if you don’t understand it is to dismiss its existence. Or even worse, fear its existence. I’ve developed a way to explain to one person what competition is and how it is impacting products and services today. In other words, I think I found a way to teach more people how to speak machine.
Let’s see how it goes! It comes out at the end of this year, and I’m still not done yet. So I need to go back to it right now as I only have my weekends to work on it and it is a Saturday right now for me (smile). Thanks for the opportunity to share these thoughts, Ken!
—
Special thanks go out to John Maeda for participating in this discussion. “10 Questions” is a project designed to learn more from the people in tech and how it relates to businesses. If you’d like to be interviewed, I’d love to hear from you — send me a note on Twitter (@thekenyeung), Facebook, or here on LinkedIn. You can also find this entire series shared on Flipboard and also on Medium.
#design #tech #siliconvalley #johnmaeda #designintech #AI #computationaldesign #innovation
