Resist!

Resist, resist I say! Do not succumb to the temptation to save a few seconds worth of effort by making acronyms.
Resist, resist I say! Think about how silly that new business program or process name will sound in a few months or years.
Resist, resist I say! Avoid jargon as if it would slowly poison you and turn you into a quivering mass of buzzwords.
Resist, resist I say! Adding more process, programs, and controls when what you need is people who are willing to be human and humane to each other united in a common goal that is worthy of them and their time.

RESIST

Image courtesy of Amnesty International

I’ve just managed to read through some of the “management approach” pages on an intranet. There are lots of good ideas and intentions there, and people who have clearly put thought into this. Command & control systems are a relic of the past. Perfecting them is, as Marty Seigel often said to us in our Interaction Design I class, “like polishing plywood.”

In this age of the creative professional, of empowered employees, and certainly in a research or design environment we need fewer processes and management and more people passionately doing what they’re best at and working together.

This is the user experience of an employee and it’s important. This goes to corporate culture and it’s important.

RESIST!

 

 

As usual this post represents my own views and not of the organizations I’m affiliated with. This is not a condemnation of an organization but a call to action by individuals of all organizations to change the way they think about work and their actions in their own work and in their own organizations and groups.

The collateral damage of a closed ecosystem

There are lots of people willing to engage on the debate between iOS devices (iPod touch, iPhones, iPads) and Android devices (phones and tablets of all kinds).
For me it comes down to this: the closed technological ecosystem of iOS provides a better user experience for the majority of users. Apple’s tight integration of both hardware and software create something that is beautiful to look and is seen as highly desirable. For all iOS devices there is only one UI, once you get the hang of it (and for many people it doesn’t take more than a few minutes to do all the basics). More importantly though is the fact that there is only one official application (app) store. There are others out there, but in order to use them you have to jailbreak your phone, something most people wouldn’t do anyway.  By keeping this tight control Apple exerts control over what is available, approving not only apps, but updates to them, as well as asking developers to drop some parts of them. One reason (though there are others) they do this is that every purchase made, whether for the app itself or for in-app purchases brings revenue to them. Apple takes a cool 30% off the top of all revenues.

One reason this makes for a better UX is that users know that any app in the app store will work for their device. This is not the case with Android with several different flavors of the OS available, and of course a multitude of different hardware platforms and screen resolutions. This has advantages for those creating the apps as well, but I won’t get into that.

But what happens when a well known product, and brand such as Audible (owned by Amazon) has an app that even links to their mobile site to go and purchase more audio books?  They were asked to remove it as evidenced by the email I received:

This is what I received from Audible. They present a workaround, but I wonder how many people will do it?

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes thought Audible was flouting the rules, but as one commenter said the link has been there for months, indeed for as long as I’ve had the app (since early this year) there has been a link to the mobile store.

Ideally one could search and make purchases in-app, but I can see why Audible wouldn’t want to give away 30% of it’s revenue to Apple.  The most ironic thing though is that Audible subscribers pay a monthly fee in return for credits. So I’ve already paid audible for the credits, why not be able to spend those in-app.  I suppose though that would open up the flood gates of games where you buy credits outside on the web and then bring them back into the game.

In an ideal world one could have the great UX of a closed ecosystem and situations like this wouldn’t arise. Given that it has I wonder what I would do if I were in the strategy team at Apple. Would I allow it? Where does one draw the line?

From a UX or User-centered perspective I would say it makes a lot more sense to let people buy in-app, and any who don’t want to pay the Apple tax have to deal with it. This grates against my idea of fairness though. This is a great example of how design always offers alternatives that often are in conflict with each other. This example also shows how business decisions and strategy come into play in design.  Typically designers consider the people and the materials (technology), but increasingly we need to be mindful of the business considerations involved.

user-centered design ignores some people

User-centered design (UCD), while not perfect, stands a chance to help improve the world fairly dramatically. How many times have you bought a product that looked great, but the moment you actually got it home and tried to use it you realized the people who designed it never ever had actually tried using it themselves? You end up throwing it out, giving it away, or returning it. We’ve all seen products that make you wonder why the company that made it even bothered. Enter user-centered design (UCD), a set of ideas, methods, and really an attitude about how to create things.

Crowd, from Flikr-Victoriapeckham

Crowd, from Flikr-Victoriapeckham

Yet those who practice UCD often become SO incredibly focused on the user that we can forget about all the other important people involved in a product, service, or experience: those that need to approve the decision to make that thing. We are so intent on making beautiful useful things that people love that it’s easy to forget that we have a whole slew of internal and possibly external stakeholders that we need to convince. Some of the top people who practice UCD have the skills to sell their designs, but many many others do not. We know how to study people, but we only really want to study and understand users. That engineering guy, that management type, that head of a business unit? No way, we study people but not those people.
When will we start to understand not only those who will use the thing we are designing but those who must help create it and those that must approve it, then we are becoming more inclusive and dare I say it–more effective because those things we design are more likely to actually make it into the hands of those that will experience them.

This post is inspired by lots of conversations I’ve had with people and in fact is part of the basis of my PhD research.

The field without a name

After speaking with my friend and co-conspirator Matt Snyder about how his job search and how he’s selling his position (see his post on design thinkers not design keepers here).  He said he doesn’t think people will be talking about UX in a couple of years, but we’ll call it something else.  If historical trends are any indicator then he is right.

Then today I had a request on our Philips Yammer network about “how do I get started in User Experience?” In response to that question I wrote this overly long response.  So the context is responding to a newcomer who was ready to jump in but had no idea how, and he needed to continue in his current job function while jumping into it.    This is the context of the post.    I am cutting and pasting that response wholesale as the rest of this blog post.  here it is:

——–

So you, Sridhar, are now enterering a field that doesn’t have a proper name.  Right here we call it user experience design (or at least that is one of the very highly popular names).  You could draw venn diagrams of the following “fields” or “schools of thought” and while there is a lot of overlap, it’s not total.  Some people use them interchangably.  Here they are. IxD (interaction Design, see http://www.ixda.org) UCD (user centered Design), Usability (try http://www.nngroup.com for the best known company/people, you mentioned don norman, the other partner is Jacob Nielsen), UXD has already been mentioned, UI Design (user interface), HCI (Human computer Interaction), IA (information architecture), and I think I must be leaving some out.  Then there are the variants like Human-centered design or human-system interaction or what have you, mostly differences in semantics.  To those outside the field all of these things may seem very much the same, and to some extent that is true.  I would say that each has their own distinct personality though, and some are more distincly academic so it may be less helpful for you.
I could talk about how UI Design is more about the look/feel of an interface, or how IxD is more about how an interaction works and how it fits into a flow of work, IA talks more about site or application wide standards and structures, but it also clearly talks about consistency of look and feel etc.  Usability focuses on testing users, usually in very specific ways and it’s fantastic for coming to design decisions, but this approach has shortcomings for unfamiliar designs or introducing new interaction paradigms (they basically say to avoid it, which in some measure is not bad advice).  I think you get the picture.
In short there are a lots of ways of approaching this whole big bundle of methods, but I really think it all boils down to an attitude, and that attitude is that people are more important that technology.  If a person can’t figure it out, if the thing being used for a purpose constantly calls attention to itself and interrupts the task, if it forces people to conform to the system and not to the other way round then there’s a problem.  What part of that you want to approach is up to you.
One way to do that will be to start reading books and blogs and talking to people who are doing it.  I guess it’s the kind of career exploration advice anyone could give you.  Let me say this though: there is a great demand for people who still retain “hard” coding skillz who also have an appreciation and some experience with user-centered methods.  I see job openings every day for such people.
Getting involved with a community can help.  The IxD community for example has a lot of active discussions on their website as well as their linkedin group.  There are a number of popular blogs that have good discussions, or at least a very thoughtful and well written posts.  By becoming an active member of a community in a thoughtful reflective way you will start to understand all the terminology, the “important people” to have read, and get an understanding of the trends.  This community within Philips is not terribly active, in fact your thread is the most active one and it’s just the three of us contributing to it.  THat’s fine, but you may find other more active communities that will be better.
Nielsen and Norman are some big names in my opinion, and worth reading.  Observing the user experience by Kuniavsky is a very good hands on book (http://www.orangecone.com/ is his blog)  If you are interested in other ways of studying users I have some other recommendations.  Dan Saffer’s books on designing interactions are recommendable as well, though he is not as well known.  And the really really short version of why usability is important and how you can implement it and get a better design NOW and without much time is indeed “don’t make me think” by Krupp.  Bill Moggridges book is big and expensive, but gives a series of vignettes and interviews that can give you a good overview.
OK clearly this has gotten out of control on length.  I’ll be the first one to admit I can be long winded (which is not terribly usable sometimes). I’ll post the blog list sometime later.

So you, (newcomer to UX), are now enterering a field that doesn’t have a proper name.  Right here we call it user experience design (or at least that is one of the very highly popular names).  You could draw venn diagrams of the following “fields” or “schools of thought” and while there is a lot of overlap, it’s not total.  Some people use them interchangably.  Here they are. IxD (Interaction Design, see http://www.ixda.org) UCD (user centered Design), Usability (try Nielsen Norman Group for the best known company/people, you mentioned Don Norman, the other partner is Jacob Nielsen), UXD has already been mentioned, UI Design (user interface), HCI (Human computer Interaction), IA (information architecture), and I think I must be leaving some out.  Then there are the variants like Human-centered design or human-system interaction or what have you, mostly differences in semantics.  To those outside the field all of these things may seem very much the same, and to some extent that is true.  I would say that each has their own distinct personality though, and some are more distincly academic so it may be less helpful for you.

I could talk about how UI Design is more about the look/feel of an interface, or how IxD is more about how an interaction works and how it fits into a flow of work, IA talks more about site or application wide standards and structures, but it also clearly talks about consistency of look and feel etc.  Usability focuses on testing users, usually in very specific ways and it’s fantastic for coming to design decisions, but this approach has shortcomings for unfamiliar designs or introducing new interaction paradigms (they basically say to avoid it, which in some measure is not bad advice).  I think you get the picture.

In short there are a lots of ways of approaching this whole big bundle of methods, but I really think it all boils down to an attitude, and that attitude is that people are more important that technology.  If a person can’t figure it out, if the thing being used for a purpose constantly calls attention to itself and interrupts the task, if it forces people to conform to the system and not to the other way round then there’s a problem.  What part of that you want to approach is up to you.

One way to do that will be to start reading books and blogs and talking to people who are doing it.  I guess it’s the kind of career exploration advice anyone could give you.  Let me say this though: there is a great demand for people who still retain “hard” coding skillz who also have an appreciation and some experience with user-centered methods.  I see job openings every day for such people.

Getting involved with a community can help.  The IxD community for example has a lot of active discussions on their website as well as their linkedin group.  There are a number of popular blogs that have good discussions, or at least a very thoughtful and well written posts.  By becoming an active member of a community in a thoughtful reflective way you will start to understand all the terminology, the “important people” to have read, and get an understanding of the trends.  This community within Philips is not terribly active, in fact your thread is the most active one and it’s just the three of us contributing to it.  THat’s fine, but you may find other more active communities that will be better.

Nielsen and Norman are some big names in my opinion, and worth reading.  Observing the user experience by Kuniavsky is a very good hands on book (here’s his blog)  If you are interested in other ways of studying users I have some other recommendations.  Dan Saffer’s books on designing interactions are recommendable as well, though he is not as well known.  And the really really short version of why usability is important and how you can implement it and get a better design NOW and without much time is indeed “don’t make me think” by Krug.  Bill Moggridges book is big and expensive, but gives a series of vignettes and interviews that can give you a good overview.

OK clearly this has gotten out of control on length.  I’ll be the first one to admit I can be long winded (which is not terribly usable sometimes).

——

So my only comment on that post I made is that of course we do have a name, but it’s not something everyone agrees on.  The other quandary is explaining what you do to your family.  Yes, grandma I’m a user experience designer…. Then the last part is the part Matt originally brought up in his job hunt, but is something we dealt with in our Internal special interest group meeting again this morning: How do we explain and sell our value to the other parts of Philips?  Coming up with a good, easy to understand answer to that question would be extremely valuable.

New IDEO home page ugly and confusing

The disclaimers to the short post are many: I love what IDEO does, I think they do great things.  I have VERY MUCH enjoyed the clarity of Tim Brown’s recent article in the Harvard Business review, an excert of that is:

“Design thinking is an approach that uses the designer’s sensibility and methods for problem solving to meet people’s needs in a technologically feasible and commercially viable way. In other words, design thinking is human-centered innovation.” —Tim Brown

WOW is all I can say to that. I have Bill Moggridge’s book, Designing Interactions, and it is reccomendable. Yes IDEO and the people who work there are awesome.

All that aside, I must protest to their new homepage.

IDEO just launched a new website. Here is a portion of the homepage here:

As you mouse over the text boxes it highlights certain of the other pages by taking away the pink.  If one should click on a text box it keeps those pages highlighted as well as bring up some other links you can click in those sections.  You may then click on any one of those highlighted pages or those links. You CANNOT click on those boxes themselves to go to that section.

I don’t understand why one would want to click on one of those teeny tiny pages.  With the exception of the one with the bikes it is totally unclear what those things are.

The whole look and feel of the site is radically different once inside the site creating more of a mismatch.  The whole thing is a confusing and not very usable, I sincerely hope that IDEO is using human-centered methods to test the website.  If it turns out that people love it, then more power to them, but I just can’t imagine that this is the case.
EDIT/UPDATE on 8-12-08:
I had someone comment that they loved the website (See trackback below) so I went back to the website with a fresh pair of eyes, and most notably a larger monitor.  The big plus is NOW I can see the navigation elements on the bottom, which helps make the site somewhat more friendly.  Even on the larger monitor (22″ widescreen) the lower navigation elements disappear on many pages throughout, giving rise the the disjointedness between homepage and the rest of the site.
I understand going for fresh, new, unique, but only time will tell if this will actually be appreciated. Leave feedback below.