A mind map is easier to read than a traditional site map.

There are a few reasons I’ve almost entirely ditched site maps in favor of mind maps. (Mind maps are traditionally considered tools for concept mapping or diagramming complex ideas, not websites.)

First, site maps tend to be better for page-based site diagramming, but as we move toward states and modes, user decisions and flows become more relevant than pages. I find mind maps do a much better job showing routes and decisions that don’t necessarily correlate to a page change.

Second, I find the better mind mapping software to be more intuitive and fast-paced than most site mapping software.

The MindNode UI.

For example, MindNode, an excellent Mac-based mind mapping application, lets you start designing web experiences in seconds. The interface is extremely minimal, and while you can’t customize the look and feel of your work much, the default output is quite elegant and clean. The experience is so easy and fast you actually feel creative again. (MindNode also comes in a touch version for iPhone / iPod / iPad, and it works really well, even on a small screen.)

MindMapper...how very Office-y of you.

But beware. Some mind mapping software leaves a little bit to be desired. For example, MindMapper is feature rich, but I find the interface cluttered and overwhelming. When I want to sketch, I want the UI to disappear. In other words, using software should be as fast if not faster than simply sketching on paper.

Finally, it’s become clear to me after years of experience that most clients just don’t get site maps. They stare blankly, and have little if any feedback. They want to see what the experience will be like for the user. I’ve found mind maps, while still abstract, do a better job conveying what the user experience will actually be like.

One false move, and coffee's everywhere.

Apparently the folks over at BMW are still working out the best location for cup holders. Keep working, guys, keep working…

Layer 12.

This was a quickie layer, because I was in a Photoshop mood. Layer 11 is here.

Bull's Head, by PIcasso: a bicycle seat and handlebars.

Thought: If necessity is the mother of invention, then whimsy must be its father.

Mmmmmmmm....deliciously clickable.

People, please! They’re just links. If you need to be specific, call them hyperlinks. But hot links? That’s such a succulently out-of-date way to refer to them!

File under Pettiest Gripes Ever.

The latest (and long overdue) installment in my own layer tennis match.

My previous layer was a difficult one to work with. Why’d I do that?

For those of you unfamiliar with layer tennis (previously known as Photoshop Tennis), it’s a game played between two designers, wherein one designer creates a layer (or image) and then serves it to his opponent. The opponent then attempts to take the layer in a totally new direction, usually with some sort of twist, punchline, or slap in the face to his foe. In addition, there’s often a time limit associated with each volley.

Lately, layer tennis has evolved to include motion graphics (After Effects and Flash, for example) and even audio samples. For purists like me, however, nothing beats a good old Photoshop battle.

In this game of layer tennis, I’m playing against myself (which, admittedly, is kind of weird), and I only allow myself 15 minutes per volley. Anyone wanna play?

Real type comes to the Web...without Flash.

Finally, your site will be able to display beautiful fonts without Flash replacement technology. Adobe has just offered several typefaces for website design and development through the Typekit project.

Typekit supports a wide array of browsers, and users who don’t have a supported browser will simply see the default typeface, like Arial or Verdana. Typekit’s costs are reasonable (though not free), you can adjust a wide variety of type settings and styles, the library is expanding, there’s a nifty colophon tool, and the fonts have been hinted for optimal on-screen viewing.

All in all, a pretty great day for type on the Web.

UPDATE: WebType is another player in the web typography game, with technology similar to Typekit, but with fonts from FontBureau, among others.

When charged, no wires; when charging, wired.

The only thing I hate more than wires around my computer are wireless devices. They run out of juice constantly, and recharging them is a hassle. Your options, depending on your wireless device, are:

• Destroy the environment—and your wallet—with traditional batteries
• Use rechargeable batteries which last about 3 hours, have a 6-month total lifespan, and require you to keep extras on hand so you can keep working when they run out
• Plop one of those recharging bases on your desk, thus adding clutter (and wires!) to your workspace, and again taking your device out of commission during charging.

My proposal is to do something similar to game controllers: when your device is charged, it works wirelessly just like it should. When it runs out of juice, you simply plug it into your computer, turning it into a regular wired device while it charges. Once it’s done charging, simply unplug it and go back to working wirelessly.

It’s the 21st century. I find it hard to believe no one has done this yet. (Am I mistaken?)

Update: Yes, I was mistaken. I turns out there actually are some wireless mice (mouses?) that can be used in a tethered mode while charging…or so it appears, though I can’t seem to find adequate product descriptions to confirm whether, when tethered, they are also charging. One would assume so.

Of course, to anyone who considered using it, this isn’t a surprise. Nonetheless, it’s a bit sad; Google Wave had great promise and received much fanfare. It was heralded by many, including Google of course, as a revolutionary way to communicate.

But it had one major, insurmountable flaw: no one understood it. Or, rather, it took too long to understand.

And in this there is a lesson. Successful products and services almost always share the trait of understandability. When you encounter them for the first time, you understand what they do and how they can benefit you. If they are complex, then the wrapper does a good job of explaining why you should buy, though that’s a less desirable circumstance for the provider to find themselves in.

It’s not that Google Wave was overly complex in and of itself; rather, it’s that Google never did a good job explaining to people why they should use it. On top of that, the product itself—the user interface—gave few if any clues as to what made it tick, why you should use it, and why it was so revoluationary. Adding insult to injury, you could only use it with other Google Wave members, so it meant you were only able to communicate with the rare few who, like yourself, “got it.”

I’m sorry to see Google Wave die. Not because I think it was great, but because it might have been great but I just didn’t know it.

The Beastie Boys' iconic Hello Nasty album cover.

However, it occurs to me that the iPad could bring back album art after all. And not just static art, but art you could interact with. Now wouldn’t that be nasty?

Netsoft's HealthMobile app puts vital information where it belongs: in the hands of users.

Is Mobile the Right Move?

As always, the answer begins — and ends — with your target audience. If they’re not mobile, you shouldn’t be either. For example, if your target audience spends all day tethered to a computer, a mobile version of your offering might be superfluous.

If your target audience is mobile, then it’s time to ask some questions that will help determine the best course of action:

• What services, products, or information can you provide that your audience would find useful and engaging?
• What devices or mobile platforms does your mobile audience use?
• Would a mobile offering support your overall business efforts or contradict them?
• What, if anything, is your competition doing, and how can you do it better, or at least as well?
• Is there awareness and appetite within your organization for a mobile offering, or will you need to educate key decision makers?
• Do you have internal resources capable of delivering a mobile initiative? If not, how will you identify the right partner?
• Do you have support and budget to raise awareness of your mobile offering?

If the answers above indicate that you can and should go mobile, then you’ll need to determine which platforms to target and whether or not you should build an app or a mobile-optimized website.

It's like the browser wars of the late 90s all over again.

Which Platforms Should You Target?

With such a wide variety of mobile platforms available today — including iPhone, Android, Blackberry, Palm, and so on — you might feel overwhelmed in deciding how to approach your customers. However, it’s not as confusing as it sounds.

Most importantly, you need to find out which platforms your target audience is using. If, for example, they are corporate clients who use Blackberry devices, targeting iPhone or Android platforms would not be a wise choice. If, on the other hand, they use a mixture of devices, then you should determine which platforms are most prevalent and target them first.

To start, interview a representative sampling of potential users to determine which devices they use. Next, if you’re building a mobile website, review your current site’s analytics, if available, to see which devices are being used to view your site.

Mobile App or Mobile Website?

Mobile apps and mobile websites are not the same thing, so understanding each is critical in determining which to build.

Apps

A mobile app is really just software designed to run on a mobile device. Apps are often one-trick ponies, but they do their one trick very well. They’re so useful and engaging that they’re fueling the explosive growth of the smart phone market.

Like traditional software applications, mobile apps are often platform-specific, so if you want an application to run on multiple platforms (e.g., Blackberry, iPhone, Android), you need to develop multiple versions of your app and market it through the appropriate channels. This can add significant expense, so knowing your target platforms is critical.

In addition, as tablet computing grows in popularity, as it looks likely to do with the runaway success of Apple’s iPad, it may be worth considering an application that takes advantage of the tablet platform’s larger display and unique capabilities. But, as always, you should only go down this route if your audience is already there or will be there very soon.

Do you know if your users are mobile?

Mobile Websites

A mobile website is similar to a non-mobile website, except that it has been optimized for the more limited experience of accessing the Web on a mobile device. For example:

• Extraneous graphics and other heavy download items are removed so pages load more quickly.
• Navigation is usually simplified and prioritized to only the items a user would actually need when out and about.
• Large blocks of information are broken into more digestible chunks.
• The user interface is composed to take advantage of the much smaller screen real estate of mobile devices.
• It’s important to note that some sites don’t need to be optimized for mobile delivery; their current format may actually translate without modification. However, this is the exception and not the rule, and you should test your site before assuming no changes need to be made.

If you do decide to build a mobile version of your site, it’s important to understand that this effort is more involved than simply “screen scraping,” or pulling your existing site’s content into a mobile format. You should prioritize and skinny down your site to the items your mobile users will want, and ditch the rest.

In addition, there are a wide variety of mobile browsers — some better than others — which means that there may need to be multiple formats of your mobile website designed to work with each browser. That said, there is a move toward standardization, and both the iPhone and Android platforms use the WebKit browser as a common platform, and soon Blackberry devices will use the WebKit browser as well.

Apps vs. Websites: A Head-to-Head Comparison

The Best of Both Worlds

Many companies and organizations provide both a mobile app and website to their users, ensuring all their bases are covered. For example, Facebook has an app available for the major mobile platforms, and they offer a mobile version of their website for users who choose not to download and install the free app. For technical reasons, the Facebook app and mobile websites are slightly different in the experiences they provide; however, by having a mobile website and an application, Facebook avoids losing any users who prefer one technology over the other.

By providing similar features and functions on both its mobile app and website, Amazon lets users choose how they want to shop.

Alternatively, you might find that some of your information is best presented via a mobile website, while other information is better suited to an application. For example, some companies have a mobile website for their public Web presence but a feature-rich app for their corporate intranet. Likewise, some financial institutions have mobile websites for public content and an app that provides transactional capabilities for their account holders.

Don't be afraid to listen to your users before, during, and after lanuch of your mobile site or app.

Launch, Learn, Revise

Once you put your mobile website or app in the hands of your users, the fun really begins. By keeping an open line of dialogue between your team and your audience, you will learn what works, what doesn’t work, what you should improve, and what you shouldn’t touch.

Don’t be afraid to take an iterative approach. Launch with a few features you know work well, and only add new features once they’re ready for prime time. Like any technology endeavor, embrace the concept of permanent beta. It doesn’t mean you’re never done; it means you’re always on a journey.

Recap

Going mobile needn’t be a daunting undertaking. All you have to do is stick to the basics:

• Identify your business objectives
• Know your audience
• Find the best resources or partners
• Choose the right technology
• Launch, learn, and revise

1942, not today.

More proof that as we are now, they once were, here is a striking gallery of “some of the only color photographs taken of the effects of the Depression on America’s rural and small town populations” from the late 1930s and 40s.

John Cassavetes and Peter Falk

“If your mind is at work, we’re in danger of reproducing another cliche. If we can keep our minds out of it and our thoughts out of it, maybe we’ll come up with something original.”
-Peter Falk

“When I started making films, I wanted to make Frank Capra pictures. But I’ve never been able to make anything but these crazy, tough pictures. You are what you are.”
- John Cassavetes