In every design project, there is a point in the process where you ask yourself, “Do I want to use cutting-edge features and techniques, or will I be better off playing it safe?” The question may arise early on during high-level strategy discussions, or later on when weighing options for how to handle a specific component, but how you answer can have major impacts on how well your site meets your needs. As in most things, the answer depends on your particular goals, markets, and circumstances. If your brand involves an early adopter component, then taking chances on the latest and greatest aligns well with your strategy, but if you are more in the technological mainstream, proceed with caution.

Assess the Risk

In designing for the Web, pushing the envelope often equates to exploring the limits of what we can do with current browser and platform technology. Since the tools your audience uses can vary widely, deciding whether or not to build a cutting-edge feature usually comes down to listing the pros and cons of going forward with it. Some typical responses are:

Pros

• Pushing the limits forces you to think more creatively and critically.
• Pushing the limits also presents the possibility of uncovering previously unforeseen opportunities you can take advantage of.
• Discover and solve problems related to the feature before your competitors.
• Promote an avant-garde image.
• Build a reputation as being ahead of the curve.

Cons

• The latest technology may be theoretically nice, but practically useless to the vast majority of your audience.
• Your user base uses older technology that cannot support the newest features.
• Code may have to be turned over to less skilled maintenance staff.
• Immature technology can be buggy. If something doesn’t work, your audience won’t be impressed with your efforts to be cutting-edge – they’ll just think you’re inept.
• Usability may suffer if you stray too far from expectations.

Your Turn

Obviously, your list will vary and be specific to the feature you’re considering. Comments are welcome – what pros and cons to cutting-edge features and techniques have you encountered in your web design projects?

Image: Skydiving 2009, by divemasterking2000 on Flickr

It is a community for those of us who feel bound by the conventions of so-called “best practices.” Although best practices have their proper place, sometimes adhering to them prohibits the kind of creative thinking that can lead to breakthroughs in technique and approach that produce competitive advantage and ultimately advance the profession.

Beyond Practices does not have a claim to ownership of any of the ideas presented, discussed, and developed here. Ideas are open source. The actual implementation of ideas in a real-world setting is what ultimately generates economic value. How you choose to apply and execute a given idea within your business model is up to you.

This place is all about ideas and creativity. And Rule #1 in creativity is that rules are made to be broken. So there are no rules here. Instead, please follow these guidelines for participation:

1. There are no dumb ideas. Don’t be shy. An idea that may at first seem sheer lunacy may provide someone else an unexpected insight that leads to a breakthrough in another idea.

2. Feel free to be impractical. Don’t feel the need to self-censor because you can’t see the practical use or path to implementation now. Get it out there, and let it develop.

3. Quantity matters. The more ideas are presented, the greater chance of discovering those that truly have potential.

4. Quality doesn’t. If even the barest fragment of an idea comes to you, get it out there. Someone else might pick up on it. The quality of an idea won’t become apparent until it is developed. You have nothing to lose by presenting your idea.

5. Abusive behavior will not be tolerated. First offense gets you a warning, second offense gets you banned. Even if someone presents what you feel to be the stupidest idea in human history, that doesn’t give you the right to call someone stupid (or worse). If an idea doesn’t have merit in your estimation, point out the shortcomings in a respectful manner and (hopefully) suggest alternatives. See Guideline #1.

Trevor Leahy, a teen-age goalie from the Boston area, is definitely no cement-head. He has come up with an innovative design enhancement to his padding that mimics the pattern of a hockey net. The theory goes that opposing shooters, with only a split-second to make the decision about where to place their shot, will mistake the camouflaged pads for open net and thus fire a harmless shot right into the blockers. Brilliant!

This innovation is a prime example of intersectional creativity, where concepts native to one subject are applied to another, yielding unexpected and often innovative results.. The fact that it occurs at the intersection of two of my favorite subjects (graphic design and hockey) only makes it better for me. The original Boston Globe article explains that Leahy, a graphic design student, was inspired by concepts of animal mimicry and camouflage that he studied in his design class and applied the principle to his hockey gear.

The Globe article doesn’t state, however, whether the new design yields fewer rebounds. Leahy has college plans, though. Maybe he’ll find the answer to that somewhere in PoliSci 101.

* * * * *

Have you ever found inspiration within a subject or field totally unrelated to the one you normally work in? If so, do you actively seek such intersections, or do they “just happen”?  Comments are welcome, so please share!

Image: Tiger im Tor, by Dustpuppy on Flickr.

Comfort Zones = Creative Traps
As a Generalist, I draw upon my divergent interests to provide insight into my own work and attempt to come up with unique solutions. But, like anyone else, I find it easy to fall into comfortable patterns where I’m simply approaching a problem in a rather conventional way instead of challenging assumptions and seeking new perspectives. It’s the path of least resistance, especially when faced with deadline pressure, and can become a habit without even realizing it .

When I’m faced with a problem requiring some creative solution, one of the methods I’ve used to try to break free of that comfort zone is pick some random field and try to identify similarities and convergences between the random field and the field within which I’m working the problem. The theory is that by digging deeply and asking plenty of questions,  the process can shed unexpected perspectives on the problem and hopefully lead to some unique and creative result.

The Medici Effect
Recently, I did some Googling to research perspectives regarding this approach to creative problem solving, and discovered The Medici Effect, by Frans Johansson. It’s main theme is exactly the process I described above: the creative possibilities located at the intersections of seemingly unrelated fields. I bought the book, and heartily recommend it to anyone interested in creativity techniques.

One of Johansson’s claims runs counter to standard opinion regarding the mechanisms of idea generation. According to research, ideas generated by individuals working on their own tend to be better and more numerous than those generated by those working within a group. He goes on to describe a number of factors that account for this, primarily focusing on deficiencies in standard brainstorming methodologies that can lead to ideas being either being lost in the process or not sufficiently developed in the group setting. Remedies include better facilitation techniques, participant pre-work, and anonymous concept building.

Taking it Online
The above remedies can all be achieved through the use of online social media tools. I plan to explore those theories in an online social network that I’m in the process of setting up that will allow practitioners within the knowledge management fields to generate ideas using the random fields intersection strategy. I’ll announce it’s launch on this blog. Members in this group will share the starting point of having similar professional expertise. But I think it would be a fascinating experiment to set up an online network that would connect people expressly _not_ in the same field – instead of starting from the point where interests coincide, start from the _opposite_ end and work to find the common ground. So many online communities assume the starting point of birds of a feather flocking together, whether professionally, geographically, demographically, and so forth. I think there is great possibility in a group whose theme is “Meet people who are nothing like you. The only thing you need to have in common is a desire to learn and to create.”

Image: Contraption Awaits, by Damian Cugely on Flickr.