There's a lot of talk about the recently declassified White House brief that mentions a possible attack by Al Queda forces within the United States but nothing about the state of intelligence reports given to the President of the United States.
I speak specifically to the design of the document. It's clearly inefficient in its purpose to communicate the assessment of threats against the United States. While a better designed document might not save the world, I believe it would help the President (Bush or otherwise) to quickly and more effectively assess the information given to him.
In a world with Jakob Neilson, how is it possible that nobody in the West Wing has learned the word usability?
The original document looks like it was prepared in Microsoft Word. No real problem there but with so many formatting options available today I'm surprised that nothing has been done to highlight information except for indentation.
Nothing in the text is emphasized, making it difficult to scan. It would be much better if keywords, names, and places were in bold and/or in a different color. Make it so that within seconds the President can see how serious of a threat it is.
Not satisfied with this problem I set out to create a better intelligence brief.
So, let me go around the document and highlight the changes. First is the headline, nice and big — quick to read. It is accompanied by the designation 'FOR PRESIDENT ONLY' which was perviously placed at the very bottom of the original. I assume this would help any active Presidential aide to determine if they can read it in the open, or have to duck into a hallway for a quick look.
I've also added an inventory number to the document that, I think, would make it easier to catalog this type of material. Maybe it's not cataloged for a reason (SEE — President Nixon) but I still think it's a good idea. And it looks kinda cool. Future versions should place this number with a bar code.
Next is a simple matrix created to let the reader quickly scan the seriousness of the threat, where the target is, who's behind it, and what United States agencies are in play to deter the aggressors. I thought about taking this a step further by adding visual aid to some of these categories or in some cases, replacing words altogether with images, but on reflection it seemed too much. The red box indicates the threat level on a scale of 1-10 with corresponding colors similar to those used for Homeland security.
The body copy is different in only that words are highlighted to make it easier to read. Nothing revolutionary about this idea, if you're a web designer. But it's high time the government got with it.
Last is the accountability line, giving ownership not only to the cabinet member who gave the brief but also a list of authors and contributors. This information is particularly useful when independent councils are formed to investigate such matters or when Congress wants to figure things out on it's own. If business officers are now legally accountable for every document in their company, why not make our leaders accountable as well?
I seriously doubt the White House cares about such things (Condi if you are, lets talk) but it would seem to me that if USA Today made it easier for a nation to monitor the weather through good design, why not give design a crack at making it easier to stop terrorism?
Update: As per request, I have recreated the redesigned document in Microsoft Word. Now you can make your own PDB's — knock yourself out.
Now you can have your kids brief you every morning on current situation of their homework. Kiss up to the boss by reporting on the state of politics within the office. Or, if your name is George Tenet, now you can make a much better presentation to your boss each and every morning.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
A very excellent point, and a great new memo template. :D
Absolutely brilliant. Bravo on the commentary, redesign and effort.
You're the man now, dog.
Beautiful and something I was thinking about as well when I saw the original. Also, wouldn't you think that there would be, um, more detail in the original? I understand it's a "briefing" but even so it seems too "brief".
Maybe you should send it to the White House Office of Design. Oh well, they probably don't have that...but someone has to design their templates. Why not you?
you got a bit too much time on your hands.....
Nice stuff. You're not looking for a government job now are ya? :D
hahaha. this entry is equally funny and informative.
When it comes to experimenting with design and learning there is never such a thing as too much time.
Nice!
I, like many others contemplated doing a similar thing. The only changes I would make would be to the top portion where you list aggressors, etc. This would have to be more generic, as Briefs are not always about a threat. Sometimes they are just a round-up of recent activity. However, a Security Brief of this nature would be *BRILLIANT*.
my .02
Very nice.
OT: Did I miss a shutterthumb delay announcement?
At the risk of talking about the memo (instead of the design of the memo), former George H.W. Bush staffer James Pinkerton asks, "If you knew that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had received a memo a month before Pearl Harbor entitled, "Japanese Determined to Attack the United States in the Pacific," and that he had done nothing about that information, would that knowledge change your perception of FDR as a wise war leader?
I think you're completely right, and, that this is all the more necessary when the president is the type that "doesn't like to read".
Needs more picktures.
Tom, you bring up an interesting topic. No, it doesn't change my perception of FDR as a wise leader because of all the great things that he did to compensate for Pearl Harbor, one was namely turn a entire nation around from the depression and on to win the war and then later change geopolitics for the next 50+ years.
While he may have done little to counteract the intelligence of a pending Japanese threat, his other actions outweigh this one shortcoming. Although I have read that FDR let the Japanese attack Pearl to help swing the American people into supporting a war against Nazi Germany.
Unless we provoke China and France into war, I don't think Bush is going to get off so easy.
Excellent take on things. The end design is great as well.
In the source document, can anyone else determine any reason why the indented paragraphs have been indented? The format seems completely independent of the content.
This is a bit off topic, but doesn't the released copy of the brief look like it was made on a ditto machine?
sounds reasonable. you could prolly make a program with forms to place texts and select priority levels. then print it out for the president. the big number in colored format would sure impress george bush, that is a fact.
Brilliant, Greg! One of your best yet!
mmm....freshly printed dittos smell...
I really do like the new design, well done on that front.
However, it would be nice to have the original content in the new design, so we can see how the bold and colors greater emphasize key information.
Cheers.
All designers must think alike, I was thinking similar design things when Condi was speaking.
Condi kept mentionining the problems in sharing information between CIA, FBI, President, and others. Then I had my personal epiphony...
I am willing to bet that it isn't about sharing information, it is about taxonimy and information architecture. They need a single repository for information with multiple taxonomies based upon specific users. They need metadata that allows them to transend the rigid structure of information.
Users just need the information, they shouldn't have to know how to ask for it and be denied if they ask incorrectly!
Dude, this is exactly why we need open-source gubment! :)
To respond to the FDR ? first I think that Pearl Harbor is just a good example of what our own Goverment is capable of doing. If one reads the full PBD of Aug. 6 one finds out it was NOT a historical document it in fact warned heavily of a terrorist attack approaching. With a title like "Osam Binladin Determined To Strike in US" how else can you see it? If it had "Was" determined, maybe they could squeek by on that. So my ? is how can Dr. Rice during the 9/11 hearing say that it was a historical document without anyone on the commity screaming bloody murder? Nice design but untill we have a President who reads what does it matter what design he gets?
Don't fake on the funk and never lie about the truth!
And just to clear up somthing, all tho' FDR did not get a memo he did have five days to move against the the forces in Pearl Harbor that has all been declassifed so He (FDR) let Pearl Harbor happen. Makes you wonder how much the current He (Bush) didn't do.
Graphic design helping to stop terrorism! I love it!
I stumbled across this. I usually don't read sites about usability, and I usually don't think about usability. To be honest, when I first looked at your suggested layout, I thought you were being a smartass.
Within ten seconds, I realized how right you are. Within 20 seconds, I realized that, in the header alone, you provided a means to organize that day's memos in several different ways in a matter of seconds without having to read more than a few words on each page -- and I'll tell you, if I saw a piece of your design with a threat index of 9 and no agencies involved, you can bet I'd be reading that one first thing.
In all sincerity, really really really well done.
Based on some of the responses here I wonder if maybe we, as citizen designers, should come up with open source solutions to sharring information between large government agencies. Good Lord knows the Washington isn't going to come up with any really great solution on it's own, other than what Microsoft or Oracle will want to charge them millions of dollars for and likely screw up because their technology is so flawed.
Originally this was an exercise to see if this particular document could be improved with a few design techniques. I think the answer is yes, it can. So what happens if a real good long look is made into improving information exchange using techniques pioneered by the likes of Tufte and Wurman?
Maybe it is possible to eleminate terrorism through better designed communication. At the very least it will make it easier and more effecient.
(This may already have been stated, but I only have time to scan the comments and post my thoughts.)
Imagine the president had a pile of these briefs, say 15 on that given day. 3 were red. 7 orange. 3 yellow. 2 green. Now he/she has a context for the priority of each brief. He/she would most likely READ the 3 reds and probably the 7 oranges. He/she could then scan the yellows and greens to become familiar with the subject, but not have to worry so much about digesting the full brief.
It would also be interesting to see if the intelligence was moving up or down the threat matrix meter over time via a small snapshot graphic (see for inspiration on this.)
Now image the reality of how it probably is. 15 briefs. All similiar in look. No context for priority. Some get read. Some scanned. Some ignored. Amazing anything gets through the system with any degree of priority.
Brilliant job Greg.
What font did you use here?
I also think this is remarkably well done.
How dare you criticize the graphic design skills of our President.
I like the design and the idea, but surely a lot of the praise being posted here has more to do with the content of the briefing being edited, rather than the design being improved?
I agree that a scannable, color-coded stack of documents would be better suited to visual scanning, but there is no precedent for a 'threat matrix' in the original raw content, and there is no emphasised text. You can't criticise the original designer for not adding in new content to a top secret government document.
I think what is being suggested here is that the copy of the brief be improved. This document needs a better editor, not graphic designer.
Frank, I used Myriad MM for the type.
Emmet, I doubt anyone 'designed' the original document. As for praise, I'm not sure what you're reading but I see a lot of it being directed towards the idea of a better design.
griff has really hit on the most important issue- metadata.
Greg's design is not just a cosmetic improvement to the original- it actually adds metadata in the form of a catalog number, "Locations," "Agressor," and "Agencies Involved." One imagines a database (like a CMS's back end) that stores each document's body text along with the relevant metadata. Heck- with a day or two of hacks on MT or Textpattern could probably yield a better sysyem than whatever produced the original doc.
But remember that the original was not part of the "Threat Matrix," which, if I understand correctly, is an actual bivariate table of threats correlated by their severity and their likelihood.
The PDB is a document produced each day by the intelligence community that outlines ongoing developments that are deemed worth the president's attention. So the threat-specific metadata wouldn't apply to every PDB. I'm sure some of the PDBs relate to trade negotiations, diplomatic developments, and other stuff that doesn't get a color code.
But given a year's worth of PDB's, I'd bet that Greg could come up with a good design template and a structure for the appropriate metadata.
And "sparklines." Gotta have "sparklines."
The problem with the focus on "design" is that important content has been lost in the redesign. The key word in the PDB title is "in" whch doesn't appear in the revised memo. I'm sure Condi would like this re-worded design much better.
And, I think the color coding should be consistent across all departments:
The recommeded alert coding is here: http://www.geekandproud.net/terror/
as several pointed out, the pdb will not necessarily have a 'threat rating' - i'm not in gov't, but i have to assume that there are pdb's covering economic policy, scheduled legislative discussions, and in gwb's case, fishing conditions in crafwford, tx.
i think that in order to create a reasonable new design, one would need to look at a representative sampling of pdb's. perhaps a relevancy rating - [i]nformational, [h]istorical, [a]ction item(s), etc. - might make more sense.
those shortcomings notwithstanding, the sample document is an excellent example of good design fostering usability.
I like the design, but I think this particular memo is overblown and wouldn't normally be a 9 out of 10. This memo is way too general to be anything higher than a 3. There's nothing new in this memo - Bin Laden has made it clear for a decade that he wanted to destroy the US and that he wanted to kill American's anywhere. So, this redesign gives undo attention to a fairly generic PDB. But, the design is good.
I like it. You don't realize how much design affects what you read until you see something like this. Kudos.
You ARE the big man now dog.
Presentation, Presentation, Presentation, Presentation, Presentation.
In Edward Tufte's book "Visual Explanations" we learn how if engineers presented their data better, the Challenger explosion would've never happened.
Though tt seems like a petty, "queer" thing to focus on, design can save lives.
I like the improved design. I think this illustrates an important communication guideline: know your audience (reader). I assume the PDB is also verbally communicated to the president, so that a dialog occurs with clarifying questions and action items assigned.
Thus, I question some suggestions to interpret or categorize facts for the president. It seems to me the president should explicity ask for advice, or clarification without any previous editing or filtering.
When the briefing points have been filtered, significant facts may be inadvertantly removed to the embarassment of the president. He sounds silly when he says, "If I had known about an imminient attack, I would have moved mountains to stop it."
Didn't Harry Truman have a slogan, "The buck stops here."
Though I think color-coding works well as a visual cue, a black-and-white alternative should probably be pursued first. It's one thing to redesign a doc for fun, but if you really want an organization to adopt a new layout, it would be best to make use of the colors they already have available to them. Judging by the original doc, we're probably dealing with black and white laser printers here, and nothing else. So imagine your redesigned doc as a black and white photocopy, and that's more likely to be the adopted style change.
I say you make a template of your desgin that we can download so we can issue our own PDBs.
It would also be interesting to see if the intelligence was moving up or down the threat matrix meter over time via a small snapshot graphic I was just coming back to say this very thing! Maybe you have a domestic white-supremacy wacko making threats. He starts out yellow-green because he's talking smack--but when he picks up a bunch of AK-47s at a gun show, he drops to yellow, and then when he is arrested for assault and battery on the local sheriff, he drops to orange. He's released, but sends a letter to the local paper vowing revenge on his oppressors--he moves into red territory. Any half-wit (and I think you know who I mean) would be able to see that there is a rising tide of danger from this threat...Perhaps the lack of bin Laden danger awareness was a lack of good record keeping? No one person was watching all the cues and clues add up. A better graphic would make a great deal of difference, I think.
More on the character of the PDB in question from Slate.
Alas, your efforts are all for naught - according to the Guardian, President Bush doesn't even read the PDBs...he makes George Tenet summarize them out loud to him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1192218,00.html
quanta, You're probably right -- he most likely doesn't read them. So, how to make him want to read them?
Easy, make the PDB into a comic book!
HLO,
while on one side I agree with your observations on usability because I do myself consultantcy practice for the Web, I do not on the other and I would say that at the least on 2 specific observations you are wrong:
1 This type of documents is specifically designed (the Word template) to be HARD to scan. Sure there are better ways but all agencies try (what they can) with whatever office programs they are given.
2 The agency does not make assumptions on the matter, which is in the case, assumptions on (what) the matter they pass onto the President's Office would or should suggest. That is why they avoid "color" coding these memos.
Regards
In an age of increasing dumbing-down, smarting-up stuff for more easier and more effective use has to be a wise move.
The revised document is a fine example and one from which I've learned.
All things considered - and design issues to one side - the original is of an accepted format and the info therein doesn't seem that complex... hence I suggest it should have been understandable to those *required* to have an appropriate interest.
Seems to me that someone goofed... which, hardly being a one-off, is case-enough to support stuff which helps.
So yeah... good thought going on here. Hope no one's holding their breath.
I agree with DJSUBg. I'd like a template so I can send these to my friends.
Template created. (SEE ABOVE — UPDATE)
You totally OWN, man.
Key point to remember: multiple sources say that Bush does not read the PDBs. Tenet may have given Bush the PDB, but sums it up orally. So Bush may never have even seen the words on the page.
OTOH, this document fails well in that respect -- Tenet could at least have held up the paper to show Bush the big red "9" (or the big orange "7" or whatever) to indicate its seriousness. Get his attention; or so we would hope.
So lovely work, and good thinking!
nice article; am I a nuisance when I tell you mr Jakob is preffered to be called Nielsen instead of Neilson... the d*v*l is in the details, as always.
what font has been used?
Myriad
...which is Apple's recent corporate type replacement for their condensed Garamond.
You've been Poyntered.
I think you did a great job. Simple, clean, to-the-point design. Would work on just about any memo, including ones that could possibly save some lives.
YESSS! Design counts...We must collectively disseminate the ideas contained within your revised PDB for the benefit of the literate (the elitist snobs as GWB likes to call them) and especially illiterate (the clones who blindly follow). I say send this to the Media outlets (anyone know anyone?). It's sad that we are in the business of information but that we are so poorly informed about the things that really matter, and they say its for our benefit BS.
Remember: If you're using Courier, you might as well be a terrorist yourself. With us or against us, people.
Nice write-up you got in the 2004.05.04 WSJ (page B1, skip to end on B3). Congratualtions. Maybe you can get a direct consult out of this? Best of luck.
As for most comments, the on-target-est is "Tony — 11:58 on 04.14.04," which refers to the likelihood of simple black toner lasers being available for reproduction and/or printing from the files. (But with our billions at hand, despite an "immense" tax cut, you'd think the WH could afford a color printer-copier or two. My cube-complex has one as well as the standby laser.)
But what's with the sans-serif Myriad, when we know well that serif helps readability in body text?
I'm surprised noone has pointed out that Bin Laden is spelled Bin LadEn in the Headline and bin LadIn in the Matrix box...
Enjoyed the WSJ article ... good work.
Might want to run spellcheck ...
"It is accompanied by the designation 'FOR PRESIDENT ONLY' which was perviously placed at the very bottom of the original."
Is this format dyslexic friendly?
GD
You and the WSJ reporter are not inventing the wheel, but you raise an issue that is often overlooked at the highest levels in government as well as in private enterprise: DESIGN MATTERS.
Form is not as important as content, but if it gets in the way important issues might be overlooked.
I am not sure what your intentions are on a personal level (designer and reporter). However, given the readership of the WSJ, some changes are almost certain to occur as a result of your actions--even with the typos, incorrect inferences, and inconsistencies in thought. Bravo!
My intentions were nothing more than to rant about what I saw to be a problem with how our government works day to day. Then I thought I would spend a few minutes in front of Photoshop to see what I could come up with.
As for the misspelling, etc. keep in mind at the time I had no idea this would be so widely received. But I believe my example, despite the flaws pointed out by a few uptight readers, demonstrates an overall improvement in the original document.
Edward Tufte be damned.
This whole "PDB redesign" is tongue-in-cheek , right? I'm just not sure since the WSJ reporter and some of the commentators are taking it seriously. Please tell everyone that you were just making fun of a semi-retarded president.
This is a great idea, but there's just one LITTLE problem. Since Bush can't read, it won't make a difference! (Maybe Condi's his translator??? Does she speak Bushism??)
Yvadim, I think the point is that attention paid to design can benefit everybody. A 'tongue in cheek' redesign might have featured cartoon characters of a big frowny-face Osama Bin Laden or something. This PDB would be a very good format for all manner of daily briefings for a busy executive. In Bush's actual case it's somewhat irrelevant, but things like this can benefit many.
First of all, Greg-o, America's enemy isn't "Al Queda" ... as you indicate in your first sentence.
The group is called Al Qaeda. If you don't believe me, check out a recently published Al Qaeda training manual recovered in Manchester, UK. It's available on the DOJ website:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm
As for your "information architecture," there's a serious problem with your design and your attitude toward design of intelligence documents.
Intelligence data, by its very nature, is incomplete, often speculative in nature and usually subject to multiple interpretations. Intelligence briefings are rarely as cut-and-dried as your mock-up would indicate. Who, for example, determines the precise threat level rating (0 to 10) for a given piece of data BEFORE one or more decision maker(s) actually read the data, discuss it and ... make a determination?
Your mock-up presupposes that the data conveyed in the briefing paper has been edited, fact-checked, and is sufficiently comprehensice to be "packaged" for easy digestion. The very act of packaging gives such information a degree of certainty that it does not deserve. Your assumption might make sense in a movie, a TV show, or a Tom Clancy novel ... just not in the real world.
The fact that George Bush, Condi Rice, and others did not take the August 2001 threat assessment seriously and act upon it had NOTHING to do with its "information architecture" ... and had everything to do with the fact that Bush is surrounded by yes-men and is totally lacking in critical thinking skills. As for Condi Rice, she is out of her depth. She belongs in a university, not senior government service.
Returning to your design ... I assume that Richard Saul Wurman would have intelligent things to say. Ever hear that name before? If not, I suggest you research his work and speak to him. His telephone number is (401) 848-2299.
It's so interesting how many people commenting here have inside information on how information is created, communicated, and managed in the Whitehouse. Amazing!
A few of you must be on a first name basis with all the expert knowledge you possess. I have to wonder how many of you are also the same "experts" I hear on AM talk radio from time to time.
Paul — It was I who recommended the WSJ contact Wurman, along with Tufte and Nielsen, to repsond to the PDB. His response, had you read the article, was (basically) to add a map indicating where the threat was located. Since you seem to be best buddies, tell him I said thanks.
Your right, Greg, I didn't read the WSJ article beyond the first few paragraphs for reasons that are best not mentioned on a public message board.
Hi Greg, True many of us know many things, which perhaps can even help others in some level. I have to believe when (Not If) the time comes we all come together perhaps on one or many of the Weblogging community’s to make the postings available. For now we just keep the eyes and ears open.
I also agree with Paul that some logistics even if not more then a prediction should not leave the closed door, the old saying we are not alone, holds truth in this case. Good Luck on all of your business mission. M/O
Your design was so easy to read, simple, but containing what appeared to be pertinent information. Turn a deaf ear to the "naysayers", they are always full of criticism if they did not think of it (which they did not). You are brilliant. This is America, and anything is possible in America.
We are all richer with innovative young thinkers like yourself in amongst the negative population. Keep up the great thoughts!
See also "IA, ID, GWB and WSJ" for more from one of the commentors.
The primary purpose of a memo is not to inform the recipient, but to protect the author.
good luck getting politicians to believe that design has to do with getting a message through.
I would like to say that design is important and that does get lost in the gov't. Some people have it in their job description to be creatative. Most of the intel work is not about design and good looking power point presentations. The truth is that the intel world is flooded with information and some reaches the top and some doesn't. Someone else makes that decision long before the president. The title of the brief is what people are/want to focus on because it says OBL wants to strike the US. What is doesn't say is when where or how. I believe even Bill Clinton and his crew knew OBL wnated to strike the US. The brief is historical in nature in that context because it talks of actions that were in the past that show OBL's deeds. No where in the report does it say anything about an operation under way or "in the works". There is no where, when or how. Not one of these questions is answered.
The truly ironic thing about the memo is that is talks of a hijacking to secure the freedom of a terrorist. That information follows the trend of why terrorists hijacked planes. Before 9-11 hijacking were used as bargining tools not weapons. The reason the people on those 9-11 flights were unable to stop the planes crashing into the twin towers and the pentagon is because they were doing what they thought was the right thing to do in a hijacking. Cooperate with the terrorist and eventually you will be rescued or freed. So the pilots and the passengers all compiled. The strange thing about that action is that OBL has ruined a leveraging tool for all terrorist groups. No longer will passengers sit by and let terrorists take over a plane. That is also the reason why it is unlikely to happen again. Because I and most people would resist the hijacking because we are probably going to die anyway and might as well die trying to save myself and others (both in the plane and on the ground) than to let the terrorists have the plane and succeed.
If someone that thinks this memo is a smoking gun could explain what part of the memo it is that explains the how, when and where; I would like to hear it. You can't just send the FBI and the CIA out to track down terrorists without some telling information (DETAILS) about the group, where they are and how they are going to do harm.
The other thing aobut the "new pretty PDB" is that Greg Storey give the memo a rating of 9 because of what he knows now, NOT because the memo actually says an attack is being planned and will be carried out. It is easy to play Monday Morning Quarterback and to look back at pieces of information and draw the connections, but when you have a multitude of memos and sources of information (good and bad) it is hard to do what can be done in hindsight.
Holly hell! This memo has just been cracked by French and an Irish cryptologists!
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3244,36-364008,0.html
one problem with the revised Airbag version is: what if the list of locations, groups, etc is very long? the vertical orientation means that you will have a tall column of text, flanked by white. aligning the three "heading" elements horizontally would clear up the problem, and also help to move the design up the page some.
to those who comment on color printers in the White House, remember that color is not necessary for differentiation: grayscale works well too. a BLACK box may indicate a 10, while a white box would indicate the lowest threat potential.
thanks, Greg, for doing this - i do things like this all the time, i'm just too timid to put them online and subject myself to harrassment and criticism (see above). when you're using your mind and trying to solve important problems, there is no such thing as too much free time.