David Armano adds:

It means that the days of being a specialist are over. Not to be confused with a “jack of all trades” T-shaped people have a core competency, but can easily branch out. And they possess curiosity, empathy and aren’t afraid to ask “why”.

So what are the signs of a T-shaped person? Look for experimentation in their background. Have they worked in different areas of expertise? Have they experienced different mediums? Are they willing to place themselves in the shoes of others and throw pre-conceived notions out the window? Do they step out of comfort zones on a regular basis? Do they occasionally make you nervous?

Here’s another take, on Word Spy, “Having skills and knowledge that are both deep and broad”.

My problem is, I’ve got the broad, but desperate to take it deeper – from all the theory I’ve read and background I have into practical experience doing it in the real world.

Is that true though?

I choose positions based on opportunities and adding to my skill set, not because I consider myself a master at them already. In short, I intentionally go broad rather than deep. It has certainly made my career journey longer than I would’ve liked in the beginning. Then again, when I started out I wanted to be a veterinarian.

Even when I came to the IT world, I first earned a diploma in computer programming. I had done web development and design already, and thought I could love code. I’ve done design, I’ve done development, and I’ve done training. More recently I’ve been writing. For me it’s not whether things are broad or deep, its finding what I’m passionate about.

If I’m not ignited by what I can do and how I can help, I’m not giving 100% of me to anything. Sure, I could lope along and get the job done, but I’m not the type to sit still and satisfied with just satisfying requirements. That requires keeping broad familiarity and willingness to flexibly do whatever it takes. It’s not that I haven’t found something I like, it’s that I like it all. I see it all as a part of a holistic part of real quality user experience. The features that are coded aren’t going to get used if the interface is impossible to use. That gorgeous site won’t get visited if the content stinks and the important details are difficult to find.

User experience design is a great example where you have to stay broad, not deep. By having a basic understanding of trends and technologies as well as marketing, findability, making money but also meeting people’s needs and keeping up with what excites them, you meet the needs of both the company and your customers. Here information architecture, technical communication, interface design, and social trends such as social and online marketing, come together. Here the most important element is, in my opinion, a passion to help users to get there, and ensure companies make it happen. That necessitates a broad view, not a deep one.

Then again, I have to wonder, am I just not realizing that I’m “not really good at anything”? The truth is, I can’t specialize as deeply in some of the things I am very interested in. I admire developers, yet I know I can’t dedicate the time and effort needed to become an excellent programmer. There are technical communicators who I consider geniuses, and yet know I cannot compete with since I don’t give all of me to that field either. I can’t give 100% to interface design, information architecture, technical writing, or anything else, because I spread myself over all of these things.

As the user experience design field grows and changes, many are specializing in some of the integral elements, whether they focus on information architecture and good content, or interface design and graphics. Still, even if you carry the role of information architect (IA), you probably are aware of usability issues and how designs can be optimized to make that information findable. The interface designer in turn makes beautiful things, but ensures they meet business objectives and share necessary content as well.

Maybe the real answer is “go deep… but not TOO deep.”

Maybe I should finally admit I need to go deep, and carry a periscope just so I can keep an eye above water.

This business of choosing opportunities I know will challenge me isn’t always all its cracked up to be.

As a technical writer suddenly writing web content, I had no idea.

My brain so efficiently crunches data and spits it out in list format, complete with headings and summarized with concise sentence structure, that I have a hard time writing anything else.

Oh I’m great at brainstorming, researching, organizing notes, drawing up an outline, and writing efficiently. Edit mercilessly, we’re told as technical writers. Make it clear, use simple sentences that convey meaning with active voice, then put them in lists and give them headings. Cut the word count in half. Then cut it in half again. Write short paragraphs, avoid metaphors, jargon, and writing personally and informally.

But this web content thing! Showing my personality in what I write, and writing articles like those found in a magazine I’d curl up with and read while sipping tea in the evening? Wait, don’t I have to GET a personality first.

Online writing resources are no help – again demanding concise sentences and clear, quick writing rather than a conversational tone that invites the reader to crawl into the story with me. Journalism. I have no experience with journalism.

We’re all taught that online writing has to be hard hitting and quick because readers scan, and will not invest time in reading a meandering piece. Once again, I think Amber said it right before I even knew what I was doing, in her ALA article:

Content, on the other hand, fills a real need: it establishes emotional connections between people. The writing has heart and spirit; it has something to say and the wherewithal to stand up and say it. Content is the stuff readers want to read, even if they have to print it to do so. (And readers will print a long piece; just because something is published online doesn’t mean it must be read online). Content is thoughtful, personable, and faithfully written. It hooks the reader and draws him in, encouraging him to click this link or that, to venture further into a website. It delivers what it promises and delights the attentive reader.

More to follow.

But I think she was right after all.

Sure the theory is sound, and it is absolutely a great read about human behaviour and how to match that behaviour effectively. In terms of studying cognition, Norman’s book cannot be denied as a classic. The concepts could be applicable anywhere, and I bet it’s a great text for university studies.

But for me? In the world of web design and technical documentation for software? The examples from engineering are so far removed, and the theory is so distant from what I want to do, that there are more modern books worth reading first.

I’ve come home with print versions of Designing The Moment by Hoekman, and Designing For The Social Web by Porter, both published by New Riders. Recently I saw someone point out that user experience design will be only taken seriously when those who do it actually have done the work. The person explained that just as in other disciplines, the theory needs to be applied to be proven as worthwhile. Actually integrating UX concepts – both within web sites and software interfaces – is an idea that is perhaps still in its infancy. Norman’s fascinating book is mature, thoughtful, but not as applicable to modern design.

Designing The Moment is subtitled “web interface design concepts in action”, and is literally several examples of real design decisions and a discussion of how they were developed with user experience in mind. Designing For The Social Web does something interesting; it recognizes the power of social marketing, yet focuses not on ROI, but on the users themselves. Designing Web Navigation is another one that discusses human behaviour and how we process human-computer experiences. Yes, we want to learn how people think, we want to know how they use the web, how they navigate, and what brings them back, but we want to do it by valuing the customers. Not just focusing on sales numbers and profits. These three are undeniably about modern design though; not engineering.

While I am absolutely fascinated by human-computer interaction and cognitive theory, and Norman is clearly an expert, I have to admit there is a limit to the time I can spend. Time is money. Money buys food. Food is eaten by my kids.

Ultimately, I don’t have the time for theory that needs a lot of processing to be applicable here and now. While I would love to have the time to read Norman’s The Design Of Everyday Things along with so many other HCI related books, there are just more practical modern books out there relating to web and interface design.

By the way, you can see my Delicious links while you’re there if you like.

Otherwise, not for the first time today I have really desperately wished I owned a Mac. In the past I wanted OmniGraffle. Today however Silverback has been released; Mac OSX Tiger and Leopard only. Silverback is “unobtrusive usability testing software”, and nicely priced for guerilla (get it? guerilla? silverback?) usability testing.

I’m considering taking some .Net courses, as recently that seems to play out in interface design and technical communication job descriptions. I took four semesters of Visual Basic, and a semester of ASP – all just before the beta of .Net came out unfortunately. It is hard to decide where to focus. I want to be able to help in many areas, yet the wider I cast that net, the shallower it may have to be. On one hand I would like to be jack of all trades, on the other, I recognize unless I focus, I will always have familiarity with many things without specialization or proficiency in a few.

Lately I have applied for several freelance jobs and also volunteered to help with one online project that could use the help of a designer. This volunteer opportunity should be a lot of fun since I’ll get the chance to play with elements of web design in my free time, around the kids’ hours, and continue to build my portfolio of experience. I can hardly wait.

In the meantime I’m catching up on some reading relating to technical writing, such as Tom’s blog – I’d Rather Be Writing. I finished Jesse James Garrett’s Elements of User Experience the other day and absolutely loved it. Now is a perfect time to be sprawled out on the floor reading a good book.

I would guess X and Y are probably the same fee and that Y will run again June 24th to August 4th, but wanted confirmation. I emailed the address listed on the page.

The response I got, all of one paragraph, said “click this link and click on the course codes for details including descriptions, pricing, etc.” and then mentioned the next calendar is out at the end of June for the fall session.

What we have here is someone who immediately assumed I was the lowest common denominator in terms of user, and I’m sure this is why many suggest we should stop using the loaded term “user” altogether. To put it another way, the person who responded assumed I knew nothing, and gave the quickest, most canned response whatsoever. No doubt this person is over-worked and ultra-busy, and just wanted to get the email out of her inbox.

While I understand her desire to do that, I don’t agree with it. Here’s what I would’ve done

• pre-write a response to all incoming messages to that address, advising the user that I had received their message, would respond to them within X hours or days, and thanking them for their interest
• ensure that response included the easiest way to access the information about the courses – this is where I would put the URL and enthusiastically let the user know if you click the course codes you can get more information
• take an extra moment to investigate the question – if this person had even checked her own site by following her own directions to me, she would’ve seen the info wasn’t there
• respond to the user personally, apologizing that it wasn’t clear
• make a note to ask the web designer/tech/IT department why the information is provided the way it is – how and why fee could be listed as “past cutoff”, and how to fix it to prevent such problems in the future

When in real life would you expect to offer a customer such a short, silly response that comes off as if they are a moron?