i am jdw's tumble log

Unlike a brainstorming meeting, where the goal is to come up with new ideas, a critique meeting is focused on evaluating a set of existing ideas, and possibly identify future directions or changes. Instead of hoping informal discussions will resolve hard issues, its worth setting up a specific critique to drive a design forward.

GOALS OF A DESIGN CRITIQUE
A design critique involves a small group of 3-7 to discuss a set of sketches or prototypes. You could focus purely on branding elements, ease of use concepts, or even engineering feasibility, it’s up to whoever leads. The important thing is someone does lead the discussion, define what questions should be discussed and facilitate the conversation.

(Read on…)

If you agree the patent system is a boat anchor around innovation’s neck, check out @EFF’s ideas for fixing things:

1. A patent covering software should be shorter: no more than five years from the application date.
2. If the patent is invalid or there’s no infringement, the trolls should have to pay the legal fees.
3. Patent applicants should be required to provide an example of running software code for each claim in the patent.
4. Infringers should avoid liability if they independently arrive at the patented invention.
5. Patents and licenses should be public right away. Patent owners should be required to keep their public records up-to-date.
6. The law should limit damages so that a patent owner can’t collect millions if the patent represented only a tiny fraction of a defendant’s product.
7. Congress should commission a study and hold hearings to examine whether software patents actually benefit our economy at all.

Prior to Apple, most product manufacturers treated the user experience and clean design as an afterthought. Now a consumer friendly design is generally considered table stakes, and companies who expect their products to be embraced in the market know a superior UE needs to be part of how they differentiate themselves. 

But when design elements (like rounded corners) and simple interactions (like pinch and zoom) can be patented, it effectively kills opportunities for innovation in the future. Certainly it’s going to have a chilling effect on companies developing new products, who now feel their need to tiptoe their designs around possible patent infringement.

So while I’m not crying for Samsung’s monetary loss, I do basically agree with the sentiments they expressed after the ruling today:

Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer

With gas prices rising and the massive drought making ethanol a tough sell as a gas alternative, India’s Tata Motors has hit on the perfect time to debut the Airpod, a small urban vehicle that, as its name suggests, runs on air.