Creating Passionate Users

Difference between Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates?

I've given presentations on "creating passionate users" at both Amazon and Microsoft. 2 big companies, 2 CEOs. Guess which CEO has been to the talk? And he didn't just sit there, he participated. His hand shot up when I asked a question. He quit fondling his Blackberry. But far more importantly--he asked an amazing question.

And it was a question I can't imagine being asked by Bill Gates, even in the alternate universe where Bill Gates WOULD choose to see a talk on "creating passionate users."

So there he was, Jeff Bezos, third row. (The talk he came to was at O'Reilly's Foo Camp, not the one I did at Amazon.)

I tried to imagine what he was doing there. You're Jeff f'n Bezos. More than 10,000 people work for you. You're building a space ship!

After the talk, Jeff came up (patiently waiting his turn) and said he was really going to think hard about the implications of the some of the things we talked about, especially the part on levels and rewards. Then he asked, "How can I do more for our reviewers? These people do so much, and work so hard--especially the ones who do a lot of reviews -- and the 'Top [some number] Reviewer' badges are not enough." I was speechless. Not because I couldn't think of an answer, but because I couldn't believe someone this far up the food chain would even think--let alone care about this. My talk is geared toward--and usually attended by--founders of tiny start-ups, not Big Company CEOs. [Visualize me doing one of those cartoon double-take head shake eye-pop things]

But then I remembered my trip to Amazon, where Paul Graham gave a fabulous talk on what a company loses when it gets big, and how important it was to hang on to a start-up sensibility as you grow. Paul said to the Amazon folks, "You're a big company now, but how can you still act like a start-up in the ways that really matter."

And there's Jeff Bezos, doing exactly that. Acting just like the enthusiastic start-up folks I usually see--the ones whose chance for success hangs on their ability to make and keep users happy. The ones who don't have 10,000 other people to do it for them.

I have no idea if he thought about it ever again, and yes we all have our stories of bad Amazon customer service. But the point is, Jeff Bezos, CEO, chose to spend time and attention on a talk about user passion. And remember, what we (and Jeff) were talking about is at the implementation level, not some abstract concept of "we must be good to our customers." I believe most CEOs do care--at least strategically--about having happy users, but wouldn't waste a single synapse actually thinking about specific ways to make it happen.

So, to my original question on the difference between Jeff and Bill--would Bill Gates attend a talk like this? (And I'm not talking about my talk in particular, but anything--by anyone--on these kinds of user-happiness topics.) Ask yourself, would your CEO choose to hear a talk on how to create passionate users? How about your upper-level managers? Anyone besides you? When I worked at Sun, I gave many lunch-time "brown-bag" talks on this over my 4 years, and it would never have occurred to me that, say, Scott McNealy might drop in. Or any mid-to-upper-level manager. (Although I'm delighted that there are some kick-ass higher-up Sun folks I know now that are working on this... but I hadn't met any of them until recently.)

I didn't charge a fee to do this talk at Microsoft, or any other company that has convinced me they'll take it seriously and try to make a difference. I don't do this for pay; I do it because I believe it matters. The problem is, the places it matters the most are the ones least likely to think about it. No, they have too many other--apparently more important--things to think about. And for the rest of us? That means there's plenty of opportunities for small companies and start-ups that DO make user happiness (not the same as "customer satisfaction") the top priority.

---

p.s. the question Jeff raised his hand on (and answered) was, "Who in popular culture speaks English without using contractions?" Jeff answered, correctly, "Data!" (thus reinforcing his geek cred). If you want to know why that question--and answer--was relevant, you'll have to read my earlier post on conversational language ; )

Getting/Staying Organized: my Moleskine PDA

Organization comes unnaturally to me. I've experimented with almost everything, both electronic (Palm Pilot, various software apps), and plain old paper. So far, the one that's helped me the most is my low-tech, high-use Moleskine PDA. Supplies include a pen, a notebook, post-it tabs, and some (optional) 3 x 5 cards.

I won't go into many details, because this is all explained much more thoroughly on the site where I got the idea: the PigPogPDA Moleskine hack. So, what I have here is just one more example, modified to fit my (utter lack of) organizational skills. Obviously my version is based completely around my life- and work-style needs, but part of the beauty of such a DIY system is that it can be customized for just about anything.

OVERALL IDEA
One Moleskine notebook, with color-coded tabs for the five sections I care about:

1) Next Actions
2) Projects
3) Travel/Calendar
4) Notes
5) Health/Horses

6) Back Pocket

I prefer the top-binding reporter's style, but other styles might work better for you. At the end of this post I'll explain why a Moleskine and not some other less expensive notebook.

When I start a "fresh" PDA, I number the pages and pick a page for where each section will start. For example, I start Next Actions at the beginning of the book, and Projects on page 61, so I've reserved about 60 pages for future to-do items, and won't use those pages for anything else.

Each area is outlined below:

1) NEXT ACTIONS
60 pages reserved, starts on page 1 or 2. (The inside front cover is the color-coded legend/TOC, and I often page 1 for crucial bits like emergency numbers and contact info.)

Picture of inside front cover/legend:

Picture of a Next Action page:

Next Actions is a concept from GTD, David Allen's "Getting Things Done" system. For me, it's mostly just a to-do list. When I've completed everything from a page, I move the yellow tab to the first page where I have unfinished items. That means the tab might be on, say, page 6--where I have an unfinished item--even though I have more to-do items on page 7 and 8. If I have one nagging outstanding thing while everything else for the next two pages is complete, I'll just re-enter that outstanding thing to the end of my latest entries so that the tab is always a little closer to my most current open to-dos.

Note: in the real GTD system, Next Actions usually have a 'context'--a way of grouping items around situations where you're likely to do them. For example, you might have a Next Actions context for "Phone Calls I need to make", so that when you're in front of the phone, you can be efficient about making more calls since all the phone call to-dos are in one place. Or you might have a Next Actions context (list) for "When I'm Out Running Errands". That stops you from having to search through your entire outstanding list of actions to find, say, the things you need to buy when you're out.

The context thing would be harder to implement in this system, because then you'd have to allocate pages for each different context list, although I suppose you could have one list with color-coded post-its on each item to match a category... for example, a 'red' item would be a phone call to make, a 'green' item things to talk to my doctor about, etc. But that seems like overkill, and I don't have enough of these things to make it a problem to scan them.

2) PROJECTS
30 pages reserved, starts on page 61.

Picture of Project Overview List Page:

Picture of a page for a specific project:

The Projects section has two parts: an overview list of all my current projects, and then separate sections for each project where I can add more details including mind maps. Most of my big, ongoing projects have their own separate notebooks, so this part of the PDA is for summaries of some of the key ideas, milestones, mind-maps, etc. related to a project.

3) TRAVEL / CALENDAR
10 pages reserved, starts on page 90.

Picture of a Travel page:

I have very few appointments since I don't have an actual job (no meetings to go to... YAY). But I do have a ton of work-related travel, much of it out of the US, so most of my calendar is about that. I also keep an electronic version of my calendar in iCal, but I don't bother putting many details in iCal.

You can see how sloppy I am with this, and it doesn't look anything like a calendar. It's just a place to store travel-related notes including hotel and airline confirmation numbers, check-in/check-out dates, conference information, etc.

4) NOTES
15-20 pages reserved, starts on page 100.

Picture of a Notes page:

The Notes are for just about anything other than first-pass, rough brainstorming or project-specific notes that go in the Projects section. I use a lot of paper for mind-mapping, so I usually do the rough stuff in a separate notebook and then transfer a more complete one into the Notes. But sometimes this book is the only thing I have on me, so I do use it for raw brainstorming when I need to.

Mostly, I use it to write down things people tell me that I want to remember, fun things I saw, blog ideas, random thoughts, etc. If I'm working on a book, I have one or two separate notebooks just for that book.

5) HEALTH (mine, and the horses)
5 pages reserved, starts at page 120.
I use this instead of a "tickler" (although I do keep a physical tickler file where I put things like concert tickets, hotel reservation confirmations, etc. for physical things that I'll need on a specific date in the future) for things that come up for maintenance like check-ups, immunizations, etc.--things I haven't made a specific appointment for, but will need to schedule in the future.

I look at this regularly, and if something is getting closer to the present, it'll go on my Next Action list to "make appointment for..." and eventually end up in my calendar.

6) BACK POCKET
The back pocket on this notebook is awesome. Inside I store 3 x 5 cards (regular and the post-it kind), which I use for things that I want to use outside of the book like notes I want to post on the refrigerator or my physical cork board. But it's also the place to put things you collect: receipts, business cards, something I want to hang on to that I ripped out of a magazine, etc.

Picture of back pocket:

Issues and problems for me

1) No easy back-up system. Yikes.
I try to make electronic or at least duplicate copies, but it's difficult, and I have so little natural discipline for this sort of thing.

2) Not flexible once a new PDA has been started (in other words, once I've set the page sections for a fresh Moleskine, I'm stuck with it).
I'm always making a rough guess on how many pages I'll need for each section, and it's possible that I'll run out of Next Action or Notes space while there's still a lot of empty pages in another area, so it can be wasteful. The more of these books I complete, the better feel I'll have for how many pages I should allocate for each section.

3) There's no part of this that tracks any financial information. I really need a mini Quicken-like section or something. That's the one thing I miss the most about not having a "real" PDA.

I REALLY encourage you to follow the links to the two sites that set me on this path:
43 folders and PigPog: creativity anywhere.

Oh yes, so why the pricey Moleskine rather than a cheaper alternative? Two reasons:

1) It's a bit like the Mac/iPod vs. PC/non-iPod question, where Mac users will defend their more expensive choice by explaining the ways in which the qualities they care about are superior. You can choose to believe that the extra price for Moleskine notebooks is justified by the higher quality/durability, or you can choose to believe Moleskine users have drunk too much koolaid or are just showing off. (The higher quality isn't really open for debate, it's the whether that quality is justified that sparks the arguments between the Moleskinites and the... lesser beings.)

The extra-sturdy aspect of Moleskines makes them better suited for archiving the physical books. They wear well when in use, and they keep well when you're done.

2) There's a theory that says you'll place a higher value on something you've spent more money on, and this is a big part of it for me. I'm forever losing pens and cheap notepads, but this thing I treat a little more like my cell phone or--when I used one--my Palm PDA. This second reason might seem silly or trivial, but I believe it matters. Think about the fact that most people treat the things they've invested in with more care than cheaper disposable items.

Side note: my friend Tara Hunt recently started a mini firestorm when she called a Moleskine a "bloomin' pad of paper". Tara, Moleskines are an acquired taste and... you obviously Just Don't Get It. ; )

Given that I began this post by saying that organization does not come naturally to me, I'd really REALLY love to hear comments, suggestions, ideas on anything related to organizational systems and strategies including paper and paperless. I can use all the help I can get!

Add a little more random to your product

You know the feeling: You follow a near-random trail of blog links and land on the post that solves your big business problem. You randomly flip through a physics book and find next week's sermon. You're shopping for discount dog food when you find your dream date. It's the powerful charm of the iPod Shuffle ("How did it KNOW that's just the song I needed to hear right now..."). It's serendipity. And maybe we should build more opportunities for it into our products, services, and lives.

In user experience design, especially, we often work our asses off to remove unpredictability. That's a good thing, mostly. An interface that does what you expect drops away so you can focus on whatever it is you're using the product to do. While we assume that randomness plays a big role in games, we do our best to strip it from "serious" products and services. But there are plenty of ways to keep a user experience consistent while still supporting--even encouraging--the chance for serendipity. And serendipity is delightful, astonishing, sexy, rewarding, inspiring...

When the iPod Shuffle first came out, the ads were based on the theme, "Life is random." I thought it was one of the lamest marketing spins ever. I imagined the meetings, "Let's spin the lack of display as a feature. Yeah, that's it. We'll sell the inability to choose your music as a benefit!"

But I was so so so wrong. Within a few weeks' of the Shuffle's release, the serendipity effect had kicked in. "OMG! That was the perfect song for this!" "Seriously. It can't be random. It's putting songs together that just... work*" The Shuffle was getting people out of their playlist ruts. Out of the music comfort zones we all fall into (emo, anyone?). Exposing them to songs they'd loaded onto their pre-Shuffle iPod but that never seemed to be one of The Chosen Ones. Think about it. Think about all the music on your (non-Shuffle) iPod, computer, or vintage CD rack. Now think about the subset you actually listen to regularly. For most of us, it's a pathetically small set. By literally forcing people to listen to randomly-chosen songs, the Shuffle was constantly delighting, surprising, rewarding, stretching users. And users loved it.

Filters drive a bigger need for randomness today
We're all on info overload, and filters are the best antidote. Whether it's a tech or politics aggregator like Techmeme or Memeorandum, a topic-specific blog/online news site like Slashdot or Engadget, or our own hand-crafted custom news page like My Yahoo, we're all looking for ways to narrow the funnel. Even semi-smart online shopping sites like Amazon become a filter, telling us what we're most likely to be interested in, and even letting us help tune it to be more precise. But all this filtering, tuning, and pruning keeps us stuck! We end up seeing only what we think we want to see--what we're already familiar with--and slashes our chances for serendipity. And that means slashing our ability to create and innovate, or even to be truly surprised and delighted.

How can we add more chances for serendipity into our products, services, and even lives?

Of course it depends greatly on the product, with random-by-design (like the Shuffle) on the extreme edge of the Predictable/Random continuum. But here are a few (randomly-chosen) examples:

1) Staff picks of the Day/Week/Month
The bestseller lists reflect the popularity of the many. "Recommended for you" picks reflect what people just like us have bought. Both of these narrow the funnel, but the "Staff Picks" can introduce something new, especially when the staff pickers go out of their way to introduce things you might have otherwise missed.

2) Encourage other users to post "off-label" uses of the product
Don't just showcase examples of how the product can be used in the usual way. Get users to submit stories, pictures, examples, etc. of ways they used the product to do something nobody (or at least YOU) never imagined.

3) Randomly introduce things from completely unrelated domains
If you aggregate home improvement stories, for example, have a place where you insert a semi-random--but high quality--post from a non-home-improvement field.

4) Use cards from a shuffled "idea" deck
The idea is simple: select a card from a shuffled deck, and act as though whatever the card says is directly relevant to your current problem.
Some favorites:

Brian Eno's Oblique Strategies (designed for musicians and artists, but works for anything.)

Roger von Oech's original Creative Whack Pack (a long-time favorite of mine... I started using it more than a decade ago, and it's a big part of why I'm such a fan of Roger).

The IDEO Method Cards
I've never used them, but they're visually stunning, and others have recommended them.

5) The old standby: subscribe to magazines from unrelated domains
Walk through a large newstand, and linger in some of the sections you usually skip. You just never know when Cat Lover Today is going to have that perfect answer for you.

Even more challenging--but interesting--is to go beyond newstand magazines and flip through professional journals you find at the home of a friend or business associate (or waiting in the dentist's office). Who knows how many times we 'reinvent the flat tire' simply because it's never been solved in our world, while a gazillion solutions are out there in unrelated fields.

6) Find SOME means to add randomness (or pseudo-randomness) directly into your product or service
While a random tip-of-the-day is one implementation (and just because it's so often done badly, annoyingly, intrusively, and obnoxiously doesn't mean it HAS to be that way), there are probably a lot of other ways to introduce--perhaps as a user option--some element of random or pseudo-randomness. Drum machines (and other electronic/midi music software) sometimes let you choose to automatically insert subtle, somewhat random shifts in the music to make it just a little less perfect... which means a little more real-sounding.

Google has an "I'm Feeling Lucky" button that takes you straight to the first web page returned for your search query, but there's nothing random there. And while that's a useful feature, it might be equally useful to add an "I'm feeling bored" button that takes you straight to, say, the 42nd returned hit.

Photoshop has a kind of mutation feature that while not random, lets you instantly view your current image with a variety of different color adjustments. Perhaps they could add a "apply random filter" menu item, and let you see the image with some wild--and semi-random--combination of tweaks. It might never have occurred to you that the "plastic wrap" look is exactly what you needed to use on that picture of your ex you're about to put online for the world.

One of the problems with e-books...
Another area where randomness could matter a lot is in e-books. One of the complaints you hear from dead-tree-book-lovers is that they don't get to flip through the pages. On the surface, this might sound like yet another silly argument, and indeed I've heard e-book champions tell us we'll get over it, we won't care, or--hey--they'll just add a page flipping sound+animation to make us feel better.

But it's not the sound or tactile feel of the page turning that matters... it's the chance for serendipity you lose when you can't easily, randomly flip through the pages! How many times have you flipped to a page in a non-fiction book and--viola!--as if by magic, the thing you need-but-didn't-know-it-until-you-saw-this-page appeared? And no, presenting you with a linear list of thumbnails doesn't count.

There is, however, a fairly simple and at least partial solution I've seen in older experimental prototypes, but have no idea if they're implemented in any current e-book readers: a random "flip through the pages" button. But it can't just be a sudden HERE IS PAGE 267 thing. It needs to have a visual that shuffles through the pages (like the Apple cover-art thing on iTunes) in a way that displays them large enough to see something potentially interesting. In other words, it's the serendipity of a simple flip through the book that needs to be retained.

Finally...

Perhaps the best way for us all to up our chances for serendipity is to cultivate diversity wherever, however, whenever we can. Like I said earlier about filters, the bright side of efficiency and focus comes with a dark side of narrow vision. The good news? Remembering to keep a bit of random (or at least semi-random) input goes a long way. Think of the implications. You really, really, really don't want your kids to think about your music tastes (or potential music stagnation) the way you felt about your parents (who still listen to the music they played in college), do you? Seriously. Who knows which hot hipster band of today is the Barry Manilow of tomorrow... so don't get stuck.

Apple's original Shuffle promo said "Life is Random", but that's stating the obvious. Perhaps a better mantra would be, "Random is Life." We could all use more of it, and if we can give our users a few more moments of serendipity, we're giving them a wonderful gift.

Bonus related links:

*The randomness of the iPod Shuffle is hotly debated (including but not limited to the computer science issues of "random"). Read more here, here, and--if you're a math/stats geek--here.

Randomness, artificial intelligence, and art.

One of Maggie Boden's wonderful essays on unpredictability and creativity. A sample:

"With the help of this mental discipline, even flaws and accidents may be put to creative use. Oliver Sacks reports the case of a jazz drummer suffering from Tourette's syndrome.24 He is subject to sudden, uncontrollable, muscular tics. These occur, though with reduced frequency, even when he is drumming. As a result, his drumsticks sometimes make unexpected sounds. But this man's musical skill is so great that he can work these supererogatory sounds into his music as he goes along. At worst, he "covers up" for them. At best, he makes them the seeds of unusual improvisations which he could not otherwise have thought of. (Similar remarks apply to jazz musicians who use Hodgson's program to help spawn interesting musical ideas, or to artists and designers who use "evolutionary" computer-systems in developing ideas which they could not have thought up by themselves.)"

The Future of the Book

Questions to ask randomly

So... what are YOU doing to keep random input in your life and/or the lives of your users?

Let them do the thing everyone else tells them not to

This sign at the Royal Botanic Gardens in Syndey, Australia took me by surprise. So many signs tell us what we can't do, and it's delightful to see the opposite. We need more of this. And I love the, "Entry is free -- but if you would like to help preserve this wonderful place..." How can you refuse?

So, yes, I'm back. The Linux conference was wonderful (the Jeff and Pia Waugh are awesome), and soon I'll have a lot more to say about some of what I learned there. Sydney is a fantastic city, and I've now moved Australia up to the number two place I'd love to live, just under New Zealand. But I got very, very, very sick while I was there (no fault of the country ; ) although I managed to find doctors who had no trouble giving me drugs I'd need an act of congress to get here. Fortunately, I got to take the time to recover there, in a very peaceful resort up the coast from Sydney, until I was strong enough to travel back home yesterday.

Sorry about the off-lineness, I haven't seen email in almost two weeks. But I'd like to publicly thank my co-hort Dan for stepping in here, and for y'all for sticking around. We're just about to put up some changes and fixes to the blog, too, so stay tuned.

I missed you guys. That's something I couldn't have predicted two years ago when I started this blog. but I really did.

Sensemaking 4: Summary of your comments

Wow!

That was my first thought about reading everyone’s comments on the sensemaking posts. So many thoughtful comments that it’ll be hard to address everyone. But the collection made for some very interesting reading. So first, a big thank you to everyone who commented. (And forgive me if I don’t mention you here. There really were more comments than I can include in a single post.  If you commented, trust me, I read your post at least twice.)

I read through all the commentary, then decided I couldn’t handle it all on my computer display… so I printed it out and went through with my markers, highlighting all the comments about personal process (in yellow), then highlighting all the comments about tools used (in pink), and then all the comments about metacognitive strategies (in blue). I then talked about it with some of my friends at Google to make sense of it all.

And here’s what struck me…

People resonated with the sensemaking model. That is, it seems to describe a lot of what people do when they’re faced with a sticky problem. That’s good news, as it could have been the other way. More than a few people rewrote the model in their own words, and that’s good (we know that an effective way to learn stuff is to reorganize it to fit your own world, and rewriting in your language is an effective way to do so).

More importantly, commenters point out the importance of continuing to ask questions during the process. This is a great metacognitive strategy in general (see below) and helps to drive sensemaking forward. It’s also important not to get lost in the question-asking weeds as you do this. One really can ask too many questions.

Collecting information is important. As you’d imagine, pulling together your personal cache of information is crucial. Many people pointed out that search engines are incredibly useful in finding data. Alan gave his perspective as a patent attorney who does a lot of collection when evaluating proposed patents. More than a few information-heavy jobs require great skills in information collection.

Yet surprisingly, I’m not sure how good we really are (as a culture). I teach lots of classes on how to be a more effective internet searcher, and I’m constantly surprised to discover how people think about internet search. (We’ll talk about this in a future CPU post.) But the bottom line here is that you can only make sense out of what you collect, as it is played against the backdrop of what you already know.  The collection process can easily skew your results. Be careful here!

Metacognitive strategies.  Aside from being a great word to toss into partytime conversation, “metacognitive” describes things people do to manage their own thinking. And you CPU commenters had lots of metacognitive things to say. LOTS of people commented on giving yourself time to “think about it” and “let the subconscious play” or allowing the ideas to “gel in time.” And that’s good advice—time can be your friend in discovering the intrinsic structure of your information.

Another metacognitive strategy is to consciously ask questions about what you’re doing. If you periodically step back and take the larger perspective, maybe even ask pointed questions “Why am I doing this?” or “What will I learn from doing this?” – then you’re being metacognitive. Congratulations. As is well known from many studies of learning behavior, metacognitive strategies often pay off really well. They help to guide your thinking, and in the case of sensemaking, guide your choices about how much time to spend on collecting, organizing and then working on the target task.

Intuition. Although intuition isn’t exactly a metacognitive strategy, it’s clear that people recognize patterns in the data in ways that they can’t talk about. That kind of inarticulate recognition (meaning that you can’t talk about it easily) is what we perceive as intuition. We’ve all got it, and good sensemakers have good intuitions about how things go together. As Malcolm Gladwell correctly points out in Blink (and we’ve discussed earlier in our blog), intuition isn’t just a mysterious upwelling of innate knowledge, but is based on lots of experience and practice in the field.

So be wary of your intuitions in fields that aren’t your own. I might think I have great intuitions about how steelworkers build skyscrapers, but I wouldn’t trust those intuitions farther than I can spit. I would trust my intuitions about cognitive science, however, since I’ve spent years marinating in that world.

Social aspects. Many of you suggested some wonderful social strategies… Ask a friend. Talk about it with someone who likes a good discussion. Talk about it with someone who disagrees with you. There are entire schools of sensemaking (such as Karl Weick) that see sensemaking as an inherently social process. To them, “sense” is what is made by the community out of many pieces of information—that is, a certain amount of sense is made by agreement. This is a finding with deep consequences. But for us, just working the idea over with friends and colleagues is an important way to structure the information you have at hand. One of my tests of whether or not I’ve made sense of something is whether or not I can tell a story about it. I might call someone (Kathy, let’s say) and try to tell her what it’s all about. If I can do that, then I’ve made at least some sense.

Another great social strategy several people mentioned was “looking for someone else who has already made sense” of the topic. In the internet age, this is an ever-increasingly good idea. (It’s always been a good idea—it’s just easier now, and with a whole lot more coverage than ever before.)

Iteration. Yes, plain old iteration is also key. The consensus of commenters was that nobody got things right the first time around, and that you need to repeatedly look FOR information and look AT the information you have. Just looking once, or just organizing once probably isn’t sufficient.

 

So… what surprised me?

Representations. The biggest surprise was the relative lack of discussion about the organizations and representations people build up of their sensemaking collections. Normally, I think about people collecting then organizing their information—but how does one organize a collection? In my earlier studies of sensemakers, the particular ways that information was grouped together, sorted out and interrelated was always important. Why didn’t this theme emerge here? Perhaps it’s because people have a set of organizations they always use. Or that it seems too obvious. Or maybe that it’s just too hard to talk about. But it surprised me!

Tools. Another surprise was the number of tools people mentioned. There were very few. Mindmaps, outlines, VooDooPad, Devonthink, search engines – and that was more-or-less it! Is it the case that we just don’t have that many tools to help people with their sensemaking tasks?

Personally, for my sensemaking tasks I use:

> lots of paper notes in various organizations (primarily piles, grouped by common topics), even going so far as to highlight items and use sticky notes as flags;

> many online files that have different roles in my sensemaking process (like “outline” “extras” and “things to do”;

> search engines for discovery and collecting (of course);

> personal desktop search (because I typically collect information into a central repository on my local computer) and I need to find it again;

> Powerpoint --not always, but often for outlining and sometimes for collecting stuff of various media types all together in one place

Sorry to be so low-tech... but it's what works for me!

All in all, I found our sensemaking conversation to be fascinating. It’s been wonderful to hear everyone’s voice in the comments and to get an idea of how varied and articulate the readers of CPU are. Thanks again!

Now we’ll go back to our regularly scheduled Creating Passionate User’s topics… I have a few other things to talk about as well. Custom search engines, color psychology, how people visually scan their world, what it takes to create a really useful user interface… More coming soon!

P.S.  A few people have noted that they're having trouble with the images in these posts.  Would you please comment if you're having trouble too?  I'd like to debug this soon!