UX (and related) Education Listings

As promised, this post contains a listing, with links, to the education options I presented at this evening's San Diego UX Speakeasy meetup. (More on the meetup itself in the next post)

There is an enormous selection of education and training options out there and this is only a small sampling; enough to give you some ideas and get you started. Not listed here for the most part are conferences, because although conferences often have educational activities and workshops, conferences were covered by my esteemed colleague Bennett King and a cohort of other enthusiastic people.

Minus the pithy commentary that was included in the live version, here are those links:

Interaction Design Foundation - Open Education Materials ; included here is the “Encyclopedia of Human Computer Interaction”, comprised of 40 “textbooks”. Lots of very interesting in depth reading here. Other good stuff as well on their site.

The UX Bookmark - UX books, videos. Awesome resources with in-depth info. Well maintained.

User Interface Engineering (UIE) - Virtual Seminars, Mobile Immersion, UI18 On Demand. Something for every level of engagement.

Cooper - A design and consulting firm. They have "Cooper U" offering in person courses, and also UX Boot Camp (this is the one I'd really like to attend! in my mind I'm already writing the blog post about it!)

Adaptive Path - another consultancy. Offerings include UX Week, an annual conference, and UX Intensive, a 4 day workshop held in various places around the globe.

Neilsen Norman Group - another consultancy. Offerings include Usability Weeks (one of which will be held here in San Diego next month) and a 3 day Usability Camp.

General Assembly -  A training organization with branches in several cities. Set up to resemble in some ways an academic environment. Offerings include one day events such as a hackathon, & several months long classes.Here is the Los Angeles branch.

Open2Study - Free online courses. Based out of Australia, profs are global. Wide offerings including some interesting UX courses and psychology (a hot topic in some UX circles).

Udacity - one of the famous MOOCs. Offerings across the spectrum of fields from the arts to engineering. Offerings include Computer Science, computing applications (such as web dev't and mobile and design)

Coursera - another of the famous MOOCs. Mission statement talks about providing equal access to education; they have the most demographically diverse team of technical people of all the education sites I surveyed for this presentation. Offerings include Computer Science, engineering, data/stats, programming, HCI, lots of business courses (entrepreneurship, management, marketing etc)

HackDesign - an interesting self described "experiment" for developers who want to learn design. Self-paced course that comes to your inbox.

Online User Experience Institute - lots of UX courses. Has been around quite a while compared to its competitors. 

The Stanford Design ("d") School. If you really want to go for it and get a degree. They also offer individual classes, and an interesting 90 minute crash course for pairs.

Did I miss one of your favorites? If you have a listing you'd like added, send it!

Is the Internet for Introverts? or Extroverts?

Many interesting things baking in the interdisciplinary computing oven, which, one can only hope, I will be able to report on later this summer. Meanwhile, if you see a snorkel going by feel free to wave.

As the pages turn, I am reading the book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking on my Kindle. Generally a physical book person, I decided that in honor of Global Tech Women's upcoming inaugural book study group meeting this Friday, I would go all out and follow the bits where they might lead. I wasn't sure I was going to like this approach until I discovered simultaneously the ability to highlight, add notes and the best part of all, to write without picking my fingers up off the screen. Now I have become a writing fiend on my Kindle and my Nexus (and I finally have something easy to explain that I can tell my non techie iPhone friends about why I like my phone better than their phone and why my phone is easier to use than their phone).

But I digress. I want to talk about what "Quiet" has to say about the Internet as a haven for extroverts. Society at large, along with its other mis-perceptions of computing people, often tends to stereotypically think about the Internet as favored by introverts, those sad, sorry souls who can't communicate F2F and prefer to type late at night, with only the green glow (dating myself here) enabling them to see the stale pizza they are gnawing on.

If this stereotype wasn't so embedded in the cultural psyche, it might be easier to convince society at large that computers and computing is cool, and can be used in the service of social change.

But wait a minute...once the Web was overlaid upon the Internet (how many people today realize that the Web and the Internet are not one and the same?) we began to see the power of collaborative activities. How come, with all the global attention that has gone to the power of social media, in particular Twitter and Facebook, in such arenas as spreading word of the Arab Spring, of getting the word out when authoritarian governments would prefer otherwise, how come we don't think more about the Internet as a haven for socially adept action oriented souls?

It seems to me, that when you stop and think about it, there are a lot of not so pasty-faced, not so shy and retiring people out there fomenting all sorts of things on the Internet, in teams, in groups, collaboratively. An argument can plausibly be made that the Internet (not just the Web) has become the haven of extroverts.

There is a dark side of course, which "Quiet" discusses at some length, and that is the power the Internet has lent to the creation and perpetuation of Group Think. Collaboration on a grand scale, social movements and... the hive mind. Yeah...just think about all those cross postings on Facebook that your friends share without having hardly read, or have skimmed and taken at face value just because everyone else is saying so. Have you ever found yourself feeling momentarily guilty or ashamed because you don't agree with the latest post from "your group"? It is easy to just jump on board, isn't it?

Is the Internet attractive to Introverts? Sure... Is the Internet attractive to Extroverts? Sure...

Who spends the most time online, head buried in the screen?

Who gets most energized about taking control of the pipes and what flows through them?

"Predictions are Hard, Especially About the Future"

I was listening to a talk recently when this was said by a someone with unquestionable technical expertise. Given that I know what he meant to say as opposed to what he actually said I will protect my source. The point is of course, that you can guess, you can calculate, you can run all the statistical models in the world, and you might be wrong anyway. After all, the future is a result of lots of moments of now, and my now and your now and other people's now and the now that comes after the next now and the mere fact that I give you a clue about a possible direction might change your behavior and hence that direction.

The stuff science fiction is made of. Did you know that it is not at all science fiction that DARPA is funding a design project to see if we can develop a propulsion system to get us to Alpha Centauri in 100 years instead of the current 65,000 years? (Perhaps the goal is 1000 years - I may have misplaced a 0). Think about the development of a backbone array of receivers stretched across the galaxy. A different set of interplanetary protocols are needed. TCP/IP wasn't designed to store data (why should it have been?) so when there are delays....whoops, lost a packet. In trying to beam Dr. McCoy from Planet Earth to Alpha Centauri, we seem to have misplaced a few of his body parts. Just as Bones predicted would happen. I gather, then, that the idea is to develop interplanetary protocols with a store and forward capability that will withstand episodic disruptions and delays.

Not so far in the realm of the future, in fact, in the here and now, is an internet enabled surfboard. And it has been around for a decade. At least in prototype that is, because I can't find anyone, including Intel who created it, selling it (see one news article here) . I confess to having mixed feelings about a wifi ready surfboard anyway. Surfboards are a dime a dozen here in Southern California. On any given day, unless the ocean is flat as a pancake, you are likely to find the dedicated out on the waves. More often than not, they are just sitting there, hoping for that perfect swell. Assuming proper conditions, a good time to find them is between 7:00am and 8:00am on any given weekday. At 8:00am they pile out of the water, strip off the rubbery outfit and put on their suits over their sandy selves. Off to work. Last week, I was driving down the freeway at about this time, when a bright green surfboard came bouncing along - it must have come loose from someone's car as they boogied to the office at 80mph.

Speaking of high speed, I wonder what data rates you can get on a surfboard? Is the surfer more likely to miss the perfect wave if they are busily updating their status on Facebook? Personally, I prefer to leave all that behind when I don the rubbery outfit. Maybe others do too. Maybe that's why I don't find the internet surfboard for sale even in my local high end surf shop. (Excepting perhaps Los Angeles and vicinity, I can't think of any place in the continental US where a wifi surfboard would be more likely to make an appearance).

Then there is IPV6. You  techie nerds out there heard of it? It held it's world launch in 2012, yet to date, penetration is at about 1%. I agree with Vint Cerf (see that link two sentences back): we should stop making excuses and implement it.

It is super cool that as of last fall, non Latin domain names were approved. Cyrillic anyone? Speaking of the future, at the time I located that article, it was dated tomorrow (i.e. one day ahead of the day I am functioning in). Of course this has to do with time zones in Europe vs. San Diego, but it seems very in the spirit of things that there is a post made in the future about a futuristic tech topic in a post about the future of technology.For just a blip in time I can see the future.

Have a wonderful now.

Electronic Voting in the US - Lagging But On the Way

At one point in time I might have said that voting and the democratic process was extremely important but boring to think about technically. No longer. In fact, this past Tuesday I had the nail biting experience of being on an airplane for most of election day with no idea what was going on. After circling in the sky for the final 30 minutes, with a possible threat of being diverted somewhere far away, we landed in the fog, I flew out of the plane into my car and boogied up the freeway to a friend's election night gathering, arriving just as they called the election for Barack Obama. Technology has come a long way when we can reliably report results so soon after the last polls close.

I had the satisfaction of knowing that I had been able to vote even though I was half way across the country on election day. That is because California provides the option of being a permanent mail-in voter. Very convenient for those of us who are often away from home.

But what about all those people who live places where you simply have to show up in your designated precinct polling place on election day? And all those people for whom this seemingly simple process is fraught with stumbling blocks? Why, as I was reminded last night at the monthly UX Speakeasy meeting, is our voting technology in the US 10-15 years behind our technology in other areas of society?

A few years ago I learned just how divisive the prospect of Internet voting is in this country. While researching the topic of Internet voting for my book, I posted both a blog post and a LinkedIn conversation on the topic and to my complete surprise there ensued a lengthy heated conversation and I received a few, um...spirited emails.

However, as I have suspected since then, the process of dragging and pushing the US towards secure, reliable electronic voting is continuing in spite of efforts from some quarters to stop it.

Last night at the UX Speakeasy meeting, Mike Joyce spoke at some length and in some detail about his experiences implementing electronic voting around the world. Mike covered many of the "usual" topics to those familiar with the subject (verification, validity, security ...) but there was a unique spin to his talk. He posed electronic voting and the challenges of universal enfranchisement as a usability issue. More than a user interface issue. More than a software issue. Voting should be accessible and easy for everyone, regardless of where you are, and what limitations you might have physically or cognitively.

Here in the US we are unlikely to go the way of the Australians any time soon and make voting mandatory for all citizens, however it was quite instructive to listen to how seriously the Australians take voting and how they put in place mechanisms to try and make everything run smoothly for people in far away Perth (look it up on a map and you'll see what I mean) or in the Outback.

Here in the US it sometimes seems as if, in contrast to what we heard last night about several other countries, we go out of our way to make it a challenge to vote. However, after listening to Mike last night, I am more convinced than ever that the US is going to get Internet voting implemented sooner or later. Of course it won't be perfect, but tell me, honestly, is the current system anywhere close to perfect? And shouldn't we make it easier for people to vote so that fewer people will view it as a burden or an inconvenience? Let's encourage and support participation in the democratic process.

Oh...we had our own little vote last night. UX Speakeasy is busily deciding what the theme of our next mini-conference will be. After polling our membership recently for ideas, we developed a ballot for people to mark up and submit. Not electronic alas, but truly in the spirit of the day and of the week.

Do you have an opinion about the next mini-conference? Then vote!

Internet Polling Coming to a District Near You

In my radio interview Monday, the moderator Flora Brown and I had an enthusiastic conversation about the controversies that surround Internet voting. One of the chapters in my book is about Internet voting, and I spoke with Flora about the unexpected controversies I encountered while conducting my research. Who would have known there were such passions surrounding the future of Internet voting?  Indeed, deep seated philosophical differences exist about using the Internet to vote. Highly accomplished computing professionals fall on both sides of the issue - should we, shouldn't we, can we, can't we employ the Internet as another method to cast ballots?

A few hours after the interview ended I learned about an interesting experiment underway in some parts of the country. Independent voters in certain districts (with tight races perhaps?) have the opportunity to take part in an "Online Voter Preference Survey", organized by a group called the Independent Voter Network, (IVN) and  implemented by a group called "Everyone Counts".

Not actually casting a ballot online, this survey is however asking voters to indicate how they intend to vote in the upcoming June primary (for California). It feels like voting and the ballot is said to be secret, even from the IVN.

What is the purpose? Interesting, actually. I looked at the paperwork sent to selected voters (apparently the list is drawn from people registered as Independents) and there aren't a lot of details. However, they provide the URL for their website (see above) which is full of information.

The voter preference survey is a form of modernized polling. By asking people how they intend to vote, and then shipping the aggregate results off to candidates, those candidates will presumably get a feeling for how Independents are leaning. In time to...do what?

Several interesting issues here. As essentially an online voting opportunity (albeit non binding) there are all the issues of security and privacy that cause Internet voting proponents and detractors to debate. In addition, there is a fascinating issue here about how a centuries old process of testing the winds of voter minds is changing.

Will Internet based vote polling be any more or less accurate than data gathered through phone call surveys and other traditional (labor intensive) mechanisms?

Will politicians react any differently to receiving this data? In a positive way? In a negative way? The same as always?

Perhaps someday there will be fewer robo-calls during dinner? One can only hope.

Internet Voting Revisited: It Could Go Viral

Quite some time ago I wrote a post on internet voting and it generated quite a bit of impassioned response, in great part on some of the computing discussion groups I cross-posted to. Computer scientists have some very strong opinions on internet voting.

Whatever you think of it personally or technologically, it looks like internet voting is coming. There is a really interesting new grassroots movement afoot. It reminds me (and probably will you too) of how the internet was first used to make one primary political campaign go viral (Howard Dean anyone?) - and now virtually all serious politicians recognize that the internet cannot be ignored if they want to win an election. Some use it more effectively than others, but no one brushes it off anymore as only for the "fringe".

There is a group called Americans Elect 2012 that is setting up an online voting system for the 2012 presidential primary so that people across the United States can pick the issues that matter to them and the people they wish to nominate. I heard an interview last night on the PBS NewsHour with 2 of the principals and it is very interesting - non partisan, and sounds like they are going full steam ahead with harnessing computing and the internet to get around the gridlock of our current political election system.

The group already has a presence in all 50 states and is working through the complex process, that varies state by state, of when and how they are legally permitted to operate.

Their system is in Beta, and you can check it out. The site I'm about to link you to includes, among other things, interview snippets with people from 5 states - people on the streets.

Technologically, what is cool about this is that it could very well work. They have apparently thought out how to harness the internet and to address what people are really upset about (according to national polls that were discussed on the news spot last night). The organization is not letting itself get tangled up in theoretical or philosophical or technical discussions about whether or not internet based voting is feasible, or a good idea - they are doing it.

Here they are: Americans Elect 2012. 

If this effort takes off, it could radically change politics as we know it. What do you think????

Internet Voting: Security, Networking, Politics and Some Heat

With social upheavals happening in countries across the middle east and northern Africa, the media and politicians have been talking a lot about democracy and the rights of individuals to freely express themselves politically. Although we are not in a similar situation here in the US - we are not risking civil war or overturning the government - we do have an issue that provokes heated debate and widely divergent perspectives among computer scientists: Internet Voting. The US Constitution guarantees the right to vote for its citizens. Most of us take this right for granted I suspect, whether we act on it or not. It amazes me when I hear how many people do not vote regularly, given that we can do so safely and without worrying about repercussions, but that is another issue.

For the past several years various groups and organizations have been debating, proposing legislation for, and running pilot projects using the Internet to vote. Why? A big motivator is to increase access. American citizens living overseas (civilian, military, government employees) often want to vote but if they have to rely on the postal services of several countries for ballot requests and return, or if they have to travel great distances to get to an approved polling place it can be a significant burden. State and county agencies in this country wonder if they can improve reliability and efficiency while reducing costs by implementing online voting. Given the current fiscal situation in this country that is a huge motivator. The problems of access, reliability and budgetary pressures just scream for consideration of a computing based solution. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't, but if it is going to happen it is going to be computer scientists who make it so (A Captain Picard reference in case you didn't pick up on it).

There are pros and cons and this is where opinions run hot. Let's take just one example: the need to guarantee the security and privacy of such sensitive data if it is sent over the Internet.

Why is a "guarantee" of correctness on the Internet so difficult? As many of you know, the Internet was originally designed by the US Department of Defense for use by a select number of trusted sites for the purpose of guaranteeing communications in the event of a national emergency such as a nuclear attack. Therefore, redundancy of data was the primary concern, not security of data. If Washington DC was attacked, multiple copies of sensitive data would be accessible in repositories across the country. This legacy lives on today, as the Internet has grown into a global network of diverse systems connected with everything from telephone lines to satellites, connecting state of the art computers and mobile devices to 25 year old legacy mainframes. As a result, it seems that we can communicate with almost anyone anywhere at anytime and because of built-in redundancy systems, data almost always gets through - unless someone intentionally interferes. And therein lies the problem. There will always be people who try to steal, or at least read and exploit, data that is not "theirs". Although not unique to electronic voting systems, the vulnerabilities of the Internet bring added attention to this old problem. We do *not* want anyone intercepting electronic ballots, or compromising a voting web site. How good is "good enough" when it comes to accountability and reliability?

How are these issues currently being tackled? I'm going to get technical for two paragraphs in order to provide a flavor of what computer scientists are currently doing in the realm of computer security for sensitive data.

The focus of much data security work is at the application and system levels. Onion routing is an interesting technique that supports anonymity across complex networks. As data is passed from an original source to a final destination it passes through many intermediate nodes (which may reach into the hundreds). Data that is “onion routed” has layers of encryption that are successively “peeled off” at each node, assuming the node in question has the correct cryptographic technique and knowledge to do so. Thus many successive security checks take place and a suspicious event at any node along the path will raise a warning flag. The action then taken is application dependent, and can include halting the process, rerouting the data or other customized response. Two other well known network level security technologies include strategic placement of firewalls and the use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). Various methods of authentication, encryption, verification, digital signature and hash functions find their way into this work. How well do state of the art data security efforts protect data and provide an audit trail?

Although the answer to that question invites a range of answers, computer security experts will generally agree that software alone will never be sufficient to detect or prevent tampering. Hardware level security checks are also needed. It is common practice in security intensive systems to include a Tamper Proof Module (TPM). This non-rewriteable chip contains check code to search for tampering. First the boot loader is checked, which then checks the Operating System, which then checks the application(s) for an integrity breach

There are high level issues to be addressed as well. Equally important requirements. An Internet voting system for US voters needs flexibility (to accommodate different state requirements), convenience for the user, training and education of both staff workers and voters. Particularly important is timeliness – the most flexible, friendly, convenient electronic voting system is pointless if the ballot arrives too late to be counted or has to be discarded due to suspicions of fraud.

There are always tricky issues when science and public policy intersect. Computing is particularly complicated because the field is so new, and technology changes so quickly. By the time consensus is reached on a contentious issue, the point may be moot. The technical issues alone for Internet voting are complex, but often come down to one issue: risk assessment. What degree of risk is tolerable in order to achieve a societal right guaranteed by the Constitution? In some cases entrenched opinion comes from holding a philosophical stance about whether or not the Internet can ever be an acceptable medium for any voting, overseas or otherwise.  Proponents argue that it is only a matter of time until Internet voting becomes reality, and also that the subject is a matter of morals, so we must address the problem directly. Critics counter that it is not possible with current technology to implement Internet voting at an acceptable level of security and privacy, so the risks of trying it outweigh the potential benefits.

If we can be successful, the payoffs are tangible: morally, ethically, fiscally. If we don't succeed the risks are serious: from disenfranchisement of citizens to interference with our democratic process in the worst case scenario.

What do we do? Move forward (how?), or sit it out and accept the current situation as good enough for now. What do you think?

WikiLeaks will profoundly affect Computing in 2011

Happy New Year everyone.

In reading and listening to many of the online outlets discussing the significant stories in science and technology for 2010, WikiLeaks often comes up. The interesting issue for everyone, but especially those of us in the computing field, is the debate about whether WikiLeaks is a positive force in society or a destructive one. Your answer to this question flavors your opinion about the aggressive moves the US and others are taking against WikiLeaks personnel and equipment. Just today, the FBI in the US seized servers in the state of Texas after being led to them by IP information provided by Paypal who was not happy about being attacked.

The link I provide above for WikiLeaks may cease to exist at any time after I post this online. That says something.

WikiLeaks states on its site:

"WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices."

Do you agree? With their mission? Their tactics? Their results? Is their behavior a new Internet driven way to expose and fight injustice? Many people believe so and believe that they operate in the only way that they can, and that the strong reactions against them just prove that point. They point to the benefits of their actions in forcing discussion and consideration of topics that might otherwise be pushed to the side.

But many global governments do not agree at all. They view WikiLeaks as a threat to national security and in some cases have even called them terrorists. How much of their reactions are a knee jerk reaction to having communication control wrested from them in a new way?  How much is well founded anger based upon sensitive secrets and political maneuvers that we probably should not know? After all, "leaking" news is not a new phenomenon. In some cases the leaks are planned and orchestrated by governments. But not always.

The jury is out on this one. I confess I do not yet have a well formed opinion. This is a complicated subject. It is so heavily political that it his hard to untangle what data should be used for forming a judgement of the merits of WikiLeaks.  There are multiple layers of WikiLeaks actions, the subsequent counter actions of other entities, and the subsequent re-actions by WikiLeaks or its independent supporters to being attacked virtually and through legal processes. When a story goes viral on the Internet, even when confined to a specific community, then the cats are out of the bag and can't be put back in.

This is an unfolding story that will have important repercussions in 2011 for social issues in technology and computing. Because whatever happens to WikiLeaks will continue to have a strong outward ripple effect - how will other reporting agencies respond? With vigor, or with fear? Will they report more, and ever deeply into investigative journalism using the power of the Internet or will they self censor themselves?

I have not followed the leaks and societal repercussions enough to have formed an opinion about whether they are in fact spurious, significant, trivial, or just unclear because of all the behind the scenes machinations of governments. For example, I do recall that the US government was embarrassed by having some information revealed about how members of the Obama administration supposedly felt in private about other world leaders. Is this trivial? Who cares if the Secretary of State or the President (or someone else at a similar level) thinks that world leader so and so is a dork (I'm making that word up). We all hold private opinions of people we treat with respect because we feel we must. But...is the revelation significant because people lose face in the global community where so much goes on behind closed doors and the public never knows about it until years later when an ex politician writes a memoir? (Sometimes thoughtful and fascinating and sometimes a self serving sleep inducing bore)

Computing technology has fueled this whole new take on the meaning and implications of free speech. Where to draw the lines and how to determine them?

Talk about crossing disciplines....

So I am convinced that some of the longest and more profound societal impacts will be outgrowths of the WikiLeaks events going on today. This is a story that will ripple outwards across the global pond in unforeseen ways.

I wish I could fast forward 12 months to this time next year and see what has happened. I dare to predict that the results on computing use will be profound, whether the average citizen is aware of it or not.

I hope 2011 is a peaceful and happy year for everyone and that you focus on what is most important in your life, not just what is in front of your face at any given moment.