UXD - User eXperience Design

Writemaps: A web based site map generating tool

Came across an interesting web tool today...Writemaps: A site map generating tool that allows you to build, edit and share site maps. 

It's got limited features, but it has two big things going for it:
1 - It's web based, and you can share your files via url.  So anyone with a web connection can view and edit what you've created.

2 - It creates presentable sitemaps.  The page representations (nodes in the site map tree) have subtle gradients and drop shadows, and the tree diagram contains only right angles, giving your sitemap a polished professional touch.

A few other notes about this tool:
Can't print or save as image, but you can save as XML.
It's got an undo button! (how many web apps do that?)
You can zoom in/out on your map views.
It's dead easy to get started.

In summary, there's a lot of potential here, and I think I might give it a try on my next project.

Powered by ScribeFire.

DUX2007 - Ubiquitous Computing

Adam Greenfield of NYU’s Interactive Telecommunications Program gave a great keynote presentation at DUX07 on ubiquitous computing -- embedded devices that are wirelessly networked, imperceptible, mobile and post-gui. Devices that are not perceived as computers by the people who use them, but rather as a facet of their lives. An example he cited is the Nike+ product for runners, which pairs with an iPod to give you feedback on how you’re running while you’re running and records info such as distance, time, etc. You can then sync your workout data to either iTunes or the Nike site, where you can then become part of the Nike+ community. It is a computer, but to most people it's just a piece of plastic you put on your shoe.

Ubiquitous computing. Existing or being everyware. Perceived as a facet of the user’s life. Eroding the distinction between product and service

Consider the automobile. When the first Model-Ts rolled off the assembly line, the car was a product. You drove it here and there and that was basically it. With the addition of On-Star, the car’s autonomy eroded as it was now networked with a diagnostic tool, roadside service, emergency contact, etc. The perception of a car as only a product began to erode as well; the car began to evolve to a platform. Fast forward a decade or so and we now have car as a service -- the Zip car. Glimpsing into MIT’s Smart Cities project, we begin to see the car as an interface to the city and not the engine.

As designers, then, our challenge is to design for these product/service ecologies.

Back to the Nike+:  although the device is basically a pedometer it only works for runners, not walkers. In addition, participation in the Nike+ community requires Flash because that's what the Nike site uses. This is a closed ecology and by their very nature, closed ecologies are brittle. Greenfield, therefore, advocates designing these products/services to use open frameworks because of their openness, their ability to be flexible and extensible. The downside of an open framework is a loss of control and for companies heavily vested in controlling their brand, this option may not even be considered. His argument, however, is that open frameworks aid in a product’s long-term viability.

Some final thoughts from Greenfield:

• As designers, we can no longer assume that the product we design will be a standalone product.
• Everything that can be networked, will be.

A final thought from me: it's an exciting time to be designing.

Technorati Tags: Design, User Experience, Usability, DUX07

DUX2007 - Data Visualization

Data visualization was touched upon a number of times throughout the DUX07 conference.

In David Pescovitz’ keynote address on Monday, he mentioned that since the 1980s we’ve seen three waves of technology: PC Computing, communicating, and sensing. We’re now in the fourth wave which is sense making -- how do we make sense of all the data that’s out there. How do we deal with search queries that return hundreds of thousand of lines of results. How do we start to make connections between the data.

One way we deal with sense making is through data visualization -- a concept which is starting to filter out beyond the research labs into the commercial space. Through data visualization, we can take huge sets of information and present them in such a way that it:

• allows us to immediately see how items are related to one another;
• gives us a more immediate way to see patterns;
• becomes a default to try and understand huge amounts of information.

In addition to visualization, Pescovitz touched a bit on how we're using collective filtering to try and make sense of all this data. We turn to social networks we may trust, such as Digg, to take advantage of the filtering layer created by that network’s society. Anything to help us get a head start on parsing the data.

Later on in the conference, Nick Cawthon talked about aesthetics and efficiency in visualization of data. His talk referenced research he had done using different types of data visualization in order to determine what participants thought of the graphic (pretty or ugly) and whether or not it worked (they could complete a task such as finding a file). An interesting outcome was that the higher the user-rated aesthetic, the more reluctant the user was to abandon that particular data visualization. At a basic level, if the interactive graphic was perceived as “pretty”, the user was willing to spend a bit more time trying to learn how to use it.

Fascinating ideas and I know we're just scratching the surface of its potential.

Technorati Tags: Design, Information Architecture, Usability, DUX07

DUX2007 - Simplicity

Too often, the overarching requirement we hear from clients is that the product must be simple to use. As designers, we nod our heads and agree that yes indeed, simplicity is a worthy goal for this project, without ever defining what is meant by simplicity.

At the opening night of the DUX07 conference, B. J. Fogg, from Stanford University's Persuasive Technology Lab, talked to us for a bit via video about his recent explorations into simplicity. What exactly does simplicity mean? What are the determining factors of simplicity, i.e., what am I looking at in order to rate whether or not a product is simple to use?

To Dr. Fogg, simplicity is not a characteristic of the product but rather a perception of the experience. From his studies and research, he's determined there are six elements of simplicity:

• time - can I spend the time learning to use a new product? no? then it's not simple
• money - can I spend money on a new product?
• physical effort - does it require exertion beyond my usual effort?
• brain cycles - do I have to think for a long time?
• social deviance - does it go against the social norm?
• non-routine - does it break my routine?

These six elements vary by individual and by context and there are trade-offs. For example, if I'm a college student who has time but not a lot of money, I might be more willing to invest my time in learning a new product than, say, a business executive who doesn't have the time but would be more willing to spend a little more money on a product that doesn't require a lot of time.

Simplicity, therefore, is a function of the user's scarcest resource at the time. To state it another way: a product, task, etc., is truly simple until it requires a resources that's not available. But remember, Dr. Fogg said that simplicity is determined by the perception of the experience. Which means a task can be perceived as simple if it uses less resources than expected.

Now I'm not saying that from now on we market our products by setting the expectations high to guarantee the perception of simple .... but it sure is tempting.

Technorati Tags: Design, Information Architecture, Usability