Project Re: Brief Case Study. The core challenge for Fi was to plan, design and develop an interactive experience that smoothly delivered a wide array of content across four clearly branded sections. Four complex sets of branded content, a feature-length documentary, and the requisite global navigation elements combined to present a unique challenge for our UX & Design teams. How do you craft a digital experience that delivers all the wonder and beauty of a disparate array of creative content without crowding the interface or confusing the user? Creative fuel. Ui Parade – User Interface Inspiration. The Eight Pillars of Innovation. The greatest innovations are the ones we take for granted, like light bulbs, refrigeration and penicillin.
But in a world where the miraculous very quickly becomes common-place, how can a company, especially one as big as Google, maintain a spirit of innovation year after year? Nurturing a culture that allows for innovation is the key. As we’ve grown to over 26,000 employees in more than 60 offices, we’ve worked hard to maintain the unique spirit that characterized Google way back when I joined as employee #16. At that time I was Head of Marketing (a group of one), and over the past decade I’ve been lucky enough to work on a wide range of products. Some were big wins, others weren’t. Although much has changed through the years, I believe our commitment to innovation and risk has remained constant.
What’s different is that, even as we dream up what’s next, we face the classic innovator’s dilemma: should we invest in brand new products, or should we improve existing ones? Share everything. Abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning (also called abduction,[1] abductive inference[2] or retroduction[3]) is a form of logical inference that goes from an observation to a hypothesis that accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation. In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion. One can understand abductive reasoning as "inference to the best explanation".[4] The fields of law,[5] computer science, and artificial intelligence research[6] renewed interest in the subject of abduction.
Diagnostic expert systems frequently employ abduction. History[edit] The American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) first introduced the term as "guessing".[7] Peirce said that to abduce a hypothetical explanation from an observed circumstance is to surmise that may be true because then would be a matter of course.[8] Thus, to abduce from involves determining that is sufficient, but not necessary, for allows deriving. Trying to get my head around "design thinking" I have to admit that I’ve been steering clear of talking about “design thinking” for a while now. A couple years back, when I first heard about what sounded like an exciting new angle on design strategy, I eagerly scoured the web to figure out what it was all about. At Cooper, we’ve always concerned ourselves with challenges beyond skin-deep ornamentation, and we particularly relish working for clients who value the insights that we can bring to their strategic business decisions.
I’m interested in anything that gives us leverage to help businesses get beyond the assumptions that stand in the way of truly serving human needs. So when I set off to learn more, I was a bit disappointed to discover that all the information I could find about “design thinking” appeared to prominently feature the Keeley triangle, some business success stories and not a lot more. The Keeley Triangle. To be clear, I have no argument with the Keeley triangle.