PV creates a story told by users in their own way about issues that matter to them. In the traditional version, participants film and share short videos. The researcher acts as a facilitator providing training to use the video equipment; a series of games to introduce specialist concepts like storyboarding; and help to identify issues for study. When done well, it presents the ‘inside view’ in a lively way that is accessible to people at all levels. It promotes the skills of filmmaking and storytelling and delivers outcomes that can be used as tools for education. This isn’t like a diary study, capturing things exactly as they happen when they happen. It’s about people telling a story, distilling the essence of an issue that matters to them. Remember a group project you did at school or college, then add video and you’re getting there.

A streamlined version could see some of the facilitation done online or through pre-prepared packs, with people recording clips on mobiles then exchanging and responding to them using services like Google Video or Viddler. Imagine workers at a car production plant making a film about their day, or a group of diabetics sharing the story of their condition.

If this sounds interesting, why not check out Insight UK’s fantastic ‘Insights into Participatory Video: A Handbook for the Field‘ (you can download a free PDF version of the book from their website; you just need to register a few details). It’s an excellent guide to using Participatory Video and a great example of an accessible and practitioner-focussed resource. Even if you don’t think there’s much mileage in PV I’d still suggest having a look at the handbook. It really is excellent. (I’m not in any way associated with Insight UK, I just think they’re doing good work.) And anyway, it looks like Participatory Video is already happening on sites like YouTube. The question is whether we as designers want to embrace it.

Flicking through the notebooks I noticed a sketch for a new Open University logo that I drew just before I left in 2003. The Marketing department were beginning to ‘revitalise the brand’ with Wolff Olins, and the whole identity was destined to change. (I know that a brand is about much more than the logo – imagery, ‘voice’, colour, type, layout, experience all work together to create the most successful ones – but the logo is high impact and remains consistent across media.)

OU logos past, possible and present

I wanted to retain the familiarity of the hole-in-the-shield mark, but soften it a little and make it more approachable than the old corporate look. I tried to use the shield to frame what I believe is at the heart of the OU – people; the transformational effect that open access to learning has on people’s lives and the passion education ignites in its students.

The new OU logo wouldn’t look out of place in this rogue’s gallery

You can make up your own mind as to how successful I was, but I’d ask you to contrast my sketch with the Wolff Olins version. Yes, the University was desperate to appear more modern and shrug off its 1970’s ‘housewife university’ tag, but the result is sterile; a pastiche trying too hard to be cool. They were ahead of the curve with the visuals (anticipating the Web 2.0 look, or possibly ripping off Apple depending on your viewpoint) but being fashionable is a difficult game to play. Too cutting edge and you risk appearing silly when things move on. Just look at ‘Corporate World meet Web 2.0′ on Flickr (originally uploaded by gtmcknight). That’s a joke. Unfortunately for the OU, their ‘revitalised’ logo is for real.

Most of the electronic toys I’ve seen use a switch that combines power with volume settings for quiet and loud. When young children turn the toys on their lack of fine motor skills means they invariably push the switch as far as it’ll go … to loud. The designers want the toy to be stimulating and sound is a big part of that experience, but does it have to be so loud? There are other audiences to consider: parents, other children, neighbours etc.

Why not change the positions of the switch to off, loud and quiet? That way when the switch is being pushed by little fingers quiet becomes the most likely position. Or better still, simplify the switch and save money by getting rid of the loud setting altogether. (Children’s hearing develops very rapidly so if you can hear it, your child will be able to too.) Otherwise, for noisy toys in our house this Christmas, batteries won’t be included.

It seems particularly relevant in the context of yesterday’s total customer experience workshop which looked at more than just websites. It’s definitely a way of moving beyond discussions about usability and seeing things more holistically.

The insurance company can automatically put the same information into a letter so why not a form? This makes filling in the form a little shorter (after an event that is at the least an expensive inconvenience) whilst providing an opportunity for the customer to verify and correct their personal details. For the sake of some data merging the customer is once again left feeling annoyed.

Wouldn’t it be great if this could be extended to learning environments in higher education? If all the universities, rather than giving money in annual ’subscription’ fees to Blackboard and WebCT, put their cash into a pot to fund developers working on an open source learning environment? True, there’s a plethora of open source tools and learning environments available but they are disparate, sporadically updated and immature. A pot of money could really focus development and everyone would benefit. Developers would have an incentive to work on a single, unified project and universities could break their reliance on expensive vendors of what are often shoddy or ill matched products. The universities would be working for each other and students and staff would all profit.

Well I can dream can’t I?