UXD - User eXperience Design

The Curse of Knowledge

You can never know too much about something, right?  Wrong, at least according to a December 30th article in the New York Times.  As we become experts in a particular domain, our ability to innovate diminishes.
"Andrew S. Grove, the co-founder of Intel, put it well in 2005 when he told an interviewer from Fortune, “When everybody knows that something is so, it means that nobody knows nothin’.” In other words, it becomes nearly impossible to look beyond what you know and think outside the box you’ve built around yourself."

Reading the article, I couldn't help but think back to my own experiences with this same sort of issue.  I blogged recently about two related ideas: how interface designers are sometimes guilty of thinking as designers--when they should be thinking as users, and about the mixed bag that is competitive research, which can limit the designers creative thinking by boxing them into predefined solutions.   

Now I see that it's part of a larger problem of expertise and creativity.  The more expertise one exhibits in a particular field, the harder it is to think creatively--to so called think 'outside the box', and the harder it is to imagine not knowing what you do.  The problem affects whole companies, as a certain way of thinking becomes entrenched, and it gets harder for it to adapt to a changing landscape.  The article cites the example of Eveready, the flashlight maker, who's powers-that-be couldn't imagine that their product could be effectively marketed to anyone other than men shopping at hardware stores.

According to Cynthia Barton Rabe, author of “Innovation Killer: How What We Know Limits What We Can Imagine — and What Smart Companies Are Doing About It,” the solution for Eveready, as for any organization bogged down in its own expertise, is an infusion of outside thinking.  Bringing the so called novices--the non expert users--into the discussion at the early stages of design, weather it be product or strategy design, opens the door for new ways of thinking that experts have long been insulated from.


    
     

Powered by ScribeFire.

What is UxD?

A couple of weeks ago a sales presentation was being prepared in our New York office; it was primarily focussed on the problem at hand, but the presenter wanted to include a single slide as a cue to talk about  User Experience Design [UxD]. He emailed me and a couple of the principles asking for a description in a single frame.

I wrote something, designed two slides because I could not shoehorn it into one, various documents were thrown into the air, then we were all consumed by other work as the train moved on.

Now I am rethinking it. UxD is a fairly complex set of activities to describe, and there is no shortage of areas claimed by related disciplines. All of them are occurring in an area of rapid market development that happens to be highly valued by the societies we are in. Which is a recipe to attract passionate debate driven by financial rewards.

So is there a good way to describe it, or state it's value to a potential client in a single powerpoint slide? Assuming that no fly-ins, starbursts or windowshade rolls may be used in place of meaning, we will start with those old standbys - words:
________________________________________

Concise version:
User Experience Designers create structures for understanding and manipulating information, designing consistent contexts which encourage cumulative learning. In doing so they raise the bar from "being able to do something" to "being able to do something easily".

Their solutions go beyond code to model the most efficient and pleasing conceptual space that can be created within the constraints of time, budget & resources.
________________________________________

Verbose version:
User Experience Designers are typically employed on applications or sites with large amounts of features, complexity or information.

They create structures for understanding and manipulating information or parameters, designing consistent contexts which encourage cumulative learning.

They raise the bar from "being able to do something" to "being able to do something easily". As a starting point they conduct research to find:
_Who are the users?
_What are their goals?
_In what context will they use the product?

Then they use any modeling technique available to propose solutions that go beyond code to model the most most efficient and pleasing conceptual space that can be created within the constraints of time, budget & resources.
________________________________________

And this is just a starting point for discussion, and the slide itself is TBD. The concise version is hardly meant to be all encompassing, but it focuses on Pathfinders particular business goals. These are concentrated in application work, either in or out of a browser, and our communications tend to be directed toward fairly tech savvy folks. Interested in your comments.

Charles

Que Multimedia, Part 3, Beyond Typography

As you might expect, I have a suggestion or two. Firstly, I would confirm my standing as a heretic by questioning the hegemony of typography. Put five designers in front of lattes and the one thing they will all agree on with mumbled nods is the importance of Typography. Of course I would too, but this reflexive assent masks a larger problem in how design is practiced and taught. The design profession has been so deeply fractured in the last 15 years typography has remained one of the few common links between this new multiplicity of practitioners. Well, for better or worse, the aesthetics of desktop and browser based applications use type in extremely limited ways that are an intersection between common system installed fonts and informative hierarchies. And common system fonts, consider Arial, Impact and Papyrus for a moment, leave much to be desired. However this is the palette of many desktop and browser based applications. Often the more complex issues in these engagements are how to assemble, change and order vast amounts of information. Designers bring a vastly different focus to these activities than most developers. The developer concentrates on a micro level of specific code interactions to construct a working system while a user experience designer connects the user to a much more general picture. Factors that might be involved include business problems, a users cognitive interest/abilities and the the capabilities of the developers systems. There are user research activity models, interface and task modeling considerations that have little to do with what anyone would describe as sophisticated print typography. Yet notions of hierarchy and the effect of symbols and composition are elemental to forming easily navigated tasks. So mere type skills will not be adequate; understanding interaction from a standpoint of task and capability is the core activity. This means that the designer must have a comprehension of the basics of digital design history as well as what is current, and this is equally as trend driven as any part of print culture, in development terms. I see this as the formation of the question, not an answer. What we do know is that the answer is a moving target, obfuscated by the claims of those who market digital culture. But the challenge to answer it is as real as any aspirations we have as providers of both sensible and innovative solutions.

Onward to Web 3.0

In 2007, we’ll be seeing how Web 2.0 matures from a trendy buzzword into the realm of web standards. With the 2.0 technology and interaction, the idea of ‘community’ won’t be limited to a few oddball sites but will rather become an integral part of many mainstream sites.

You can already see this happening with the array of social bookmarking and media sharing links. What began as an oddity of icons encountered on the rare blog or two, is now becoming a standard one-click sharing device on such venerable sites as the New York Times. It’s a global community out there!

So with the maturing of Web 2.0 a given, the obvious question is what’s next? If I knew, trust me I’d be buying stock in the next killer app right now. But indications seem to be pointing towards a connection of data in a more intelligent manner, making it more relevant to the user.

Let’s face it, there’s a lot of data out there that in theory is searchable but not always connectable without spending a lot of time pouring over the results. And who has time for that. So we usually end up taking the first few results and running with that, but it doesn’t always work out.

So, what if we had a system that could rank and weigh people’s comments (which are fast becoming a standard feature thanks to Web 2.0) and, by cognitive deduction, find just the right result for that user. That is, our system would mine the data in the Web to detect relationships between the information that’s out there. Once established, it would be easier to extract and aggregate information tailored to fit the user.

Pie in the sky? Well the folks at the University of Washington don’t think so. Check out what they’re doing with their KnowItAll and Opine systems. Play around with their demos and think of how this would change your interaction with, say, a travel site if the system could provide a useful and meaningful result by distinguishing between concepts such "great" and "almost great".

"The system will know that spotless is better than clean," said Oren Etzioni, an artificial-intelligence researcher at the University of Washington who is a leader of the project. '"There is the growing realization that text on the Web is a tremendous resource."

And so in the next few years, we just might see this definition:

Web 3.0 – a web of connected data; i.e., moving from a web of connected documents/sites to a web of connected data.

Innovation Through “Crowdsourcing”

Companies are leveraging a new technique called “crowdsourcing”  to bring customers into the design process. A recent Businessweek article describes crowdsourcing as “the unofficial (but catchy) name of an IT-enabled business trend in which companies get unpaid or low-paid amateurs to design products, create content, even tackle corporate R&D problems in their spare time.”

The article goes on to describe different flavors of crowdsourcing. For example, a T-shirt company called Threadless relies on the results of a contest to define its new products. Here the customer is the designer. Another example is a furniture company called Muji (Muji.net). Muji relies on its consumer network for generating and ranking ideas, but then turns the highly ranked ideas to professional designers for creation of new products.

While crowdsourcing may work well for consumer products, can it work for more complex products? The article asks this question and the answer is perhaps not a simple one. The more complex something is, the smaller the “crowd” will be that has the interest and knowledge to give input. Nonetheless, the ability to easily network people together provides a reason to believe bringing customers into the innovation process will happen more and more as companies look to create a competitive edge through innovation.

Learning Complex Domains for User Experience Design (UXD) Projects

Legend has it the famous advertising slogan “Two scoops of raisins in Kellogg’s Raisin Bran” was created by an energetic copywriter who literally dumped out the box of cereal on a table and scrutinized the content for inspiration. Moral of the story:  As designers we have to know our product. But what do you do when your product involves biological science, electrical engineering or any other complex domain? Here’s a few suggestions for getting up to speed in a complex subject areas.

Speak the Language
First, you have to speak the language. Ask your subject expert to outline the top ten or fifteen words or expressions used on a daily basis by your users. Then have him or her define those words in terms that you can understand.  Keep the number of words to ten or fifteen, and only the most important terms.

Key Scenarios
Next, identify the top five or so key scenarios your users do in a typical day. Each scenario should have a simple title and a set of steps. Remember, the goal initially isn’t to do user research, but just to get a feel for what people are doing. Try to cover the five scenarios in an hour or less. This will help your expert from getting too bogged down in details you won’t be able to digest yet.

Map the Scenarios
Once you have the key scenarios, arrange them in a hierarchy. Of course, it’s possible the scenarios are isolated tasks and don’t fit a hierarchy, which is fine. But usually a hierarchy of some kind applies. This hierarchy will become a context for understanding when your user does various things.

Construct a Day in the Life Narrative
To test your understanding of the domain, take the information you have gathered and construct a day in the life narrative of your user. In doing so, you will create a vehicle for refining your domain knowledge and a start to your more serious user research.   

Two Hours or Less
No matter how complex the domain, make it your objective to get through the above tasks in 2 hours or less. By time limiting the exercise, you can keep your subject matter expert from straying into the details before you have the basics solidified.