Blunden’s crucible

Last night I read an article about poetry - not a subject I can claim to have very muck knowledge of at all. It described the creative process and referred specifically to the the structure of a sonnet. A sonnet is a poem that follows strict rules on length and specific structure. By the thirteenth century, a sonnet had come to signify a poem of fourteen lines that follows a strict rhyme scheme. This structure did not inhibit the creativity of the poet, it merely provided a framework within which to operate.

In fact some of the most famous works that even un-poetic people like me are aware of are sonnets. Shakespeare’s sonnet 18 that begins “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” is perhaps the most famous but there are many others. To me all these seem incredibly creative despite the rigid framework within which they have to operate.

As I work in an online business that focuses on usability I found the analogy irresistible. A myth (or at least what I believe to be a myth) exists that says usability consultants and/or usability practices stifle designers creativity. I have felt for a long time that this simply cannot be the case and that the creative people that I have met deal with far bigger issues through technology, brand and proposition than usability could ever create. Perhaps by comparing the restrictions web designers face with those of the poet we can understand that true creativity deals with the barriers that are present and finds a way to overcome them.

Carrying on the theme of Ken Robinson’s excellent book “Out of our minds - learning to be creative” a colleague sent me a link to an interview with Gartner Researcher Tom Austin who talks about the evolution of technologists. It is bang on and explains the reality of what Ken Robinson believes that the needs of business are changing and education is not necessarily keeping pace. The interview talks about technology leadership roles becoming the domain of social anthropologists, and not just them. As the less traditionally referred to ‘academic’ subjects are required more, our view of intelligence and educational needs will have to evolve. The trouble is Governments move more slowly and they set educational strategy.

I had the privilege of attending a talk by Sir Ken Robinson in January where he discussed the ideas iterated in his book “Out of our minds” about how creativity is stifled by the environment we grow up in. These ideas got me thinking about the ‘born digital generation’ and whether we could find the creativity intrinsic to digital sector today educated out of us as we develop rules and ideas about right and wrong.

To illustrate his point Sir Ken described a set of statistics about how creativity was educated out of children. 98% of children aged 2 and 3 could be considered genius level in creativity terms but by the time these children are teenagers that percentage has dropped to low teens. He explained that we are taught to think in a certain way and another great example he used concerned our senses. He asked the audience how many senses we had and got the traditional answer of 5 plus one special sense (sight, smell, touch, taste, sound and intuition). He went on to explain that this definition or our senses has only been around for a couple of hundred years and over time everyone has come to believe it as true. What about your sense of temperature or space he asked. What indeed.

Right now the digital evolution is in full swing. But we are no longer pioneers without boundaries, trying to find out what works and what doesn’t. We have already created rules and lessons that we will pass on to others and that have become the conventional wisdom of digital. In usability the 3 click rule is regularly spouted at me and perhaps with good reason as in many contexts more than 3 clicks creates a poor experience. But it is not right for everyone and every context and so in some cases the experience is diminished. So how do we stop ourselves from learning the rules and wisdom that will suppress our creativity and more importantly do we want to?

There is a certain comfort in arriving at a website and finding a nice neat inverted ‘L’ navigation system so why change? Take a look at a couple of websites revealed by Josh Spear (www.joshspear.com) creative genius and all round good guy. In many ways neither is what I would prefer to use but it is impossible not to admire the creativity and engagement factor. The first is Section Seven’s web site http://www.sectionseven.com/. It takes a while to load so be patient but once in the navigation pulls you in. The second is by a Japanese building design firm http://www.sekisuiheim.com/desio-ae/ and gives you the ability to pick up a character and drop them in to the design. Both provide a unique experience and take risks; and both were designed some time ago.

I am firmly in the ‘we must challenge conventional wisdom’ camp. If you believe, as I do, that what offers competitive advantage is becoming harder and harder to define you may too have come to the conclusion that differentiation will ultimately come down to emotional and experiential components. We have to be different therefore and we also have to take time and put effort in to creating an experience commensurate with our brand which is also meaningful at an emotional level to our customers.

Having to be creative and being able to are poles apart. Taking design risks with multi-million pound budgets has never been a recipe for guaranteed promotion and it is the perceived risk that creates the boundary. A good proportion of budget holders want safe investments; websites, iDTV and mobile applications that perform, not that go against conventional wisdom. Relying on proven techniques therefore is comforting and creativity is contained within the graphic design. However it is possible to be creative with the experience design by using research to minimise the risk.

Already new technological developments that enable multivariate testing have provided a means by which literally thousands (even millions) of options can be researched to find the optimum combination. The approach is somewhat restricted to design elements rather than full scale navigation models but the metaphor can be stretched. It has provided an economical model for being creative with content elements without the associated project risk that makes people nervous.

As research methods continue to develop in sophistication they will increasingly provide answers that reduce the risk associated with trying out new ideas. Maybe this is one way that we can avoid the learning and conventional wisdom that restricts creativity and actually create experiences that are truly differentiating. Maybe we will even come to think of the digital experience as a new sense.