Author Archive

In February I had the privilege of attending the Interaction Design Association Conference (Thank you Team OG!) This is an annual conference where interaction designers, user experience architects, and usability specialists from around the world gather to talk about methods, trends, tips, and share stories from the field. Interestingly, many of the keynote presenters spoke about sustainability and how well -designed products can help conservation measures. Other topics included: using fireworks to streamline the production process, mobile design patterns, and tips for surviving a design review.

I put together a few slides to share what I learned.

IXDA_2009

In addition to the sessions, it was quite interesting to mingle with fellow user experience designers and see what fellow professionals in the field are working on. Surprisingly, many are working on non-traditional interfaces such as mobile, large projection screens, and surface tables.

It was really exciting to discover that we have been asked to create a mobile website for one of our major clients. It was even more exciting to learn that this site was to be accessed by iPhone and Blackberry users. Hooray — our foray into the world of small–but–powerful screens!

I still remember reading about the User Experience of the iPhone only 1.5 years ago. As User Experience Architect on this project, my first order of business was to research mobile UI (and quickly)! Some of the findings were obvious, and others weren’t.

First, here are some UI considerations when designing for all devices:

• People on a phone and people on a computer shouldn’t necessarily see the same thing with different paint; they should see an entirely different application with different form, function, and priority.

• When designing for the mobile screen, it is crucial to consider a user’s context. When using the phone to surf the web, users are likely surrounded by countless distractions and are less likely to be devoting all of their attention their mobile phones. This means all interactions need to be concise and engaging.

• Due to bandwidth limitations, every item – from text to image – needs to be absolutely necessary to the functionality of the application.

Of course, the iPhone, with its slick, touch-screen interface, is the Ferrari of mobile phone UI’s. Apple even created a driver’s manual for those attempting to create custom features. Here’s some highlights:

• iPhone users are accustomed to the well-designed, sleek user interface of the native applications and features, which raises the bar for all other content (web, etc.) that they experience on their phone.

• iPhoners have a much more personal relationship with their phone than they have with their computer, causing them to expect a more engaging, personal experience on their mini screens than on their desktops.

• iPhone users are accustomed to jumping into and out of any application or website (to take a call, text, etc.). This just supports the point that the website needs to be extremely applicable or “sticky” in order for users to return to it and remain engaged.

The challenge with our project is that it is a web application rather than a standalone “native” application. It works in a browser rather than downloaded directly to the phone.

Here are some findings regarding web apps:

• A successful iPhone web application is perceived as a standalone application. In other words, the browser does not impede the interaction in any way, causing the user to forget that he / she is actually on the web.

• Web browsing can be fast (via wireless access) or slow, depending on where the user is. As a result, the UI designer should always aim for the lowest common denominator when it comes to bandwidth.

• All web content on an iPhone is viewed in the Safari browser.
  Flash and Java are not supported

In summary, when designing UI’s for mobile, if you focus on the user, how the device is being used, and simplify the core tasks, you are at least on track toward success. So what’s the conclusion? For now it’s “Keep it Simple, Stupid.”

I recently attended a special CHI Atlanta event regarding a relaunch of a major news website. It was very interesting to hear how they engaged users throughout the entire redesign process; they utilized surveys, qualitative interviews, and iterative usability testing.

They mentioned that they engaged an agency to help them with the overall redesign direction and user personas. Why did they choose this particular agency? According to the company’s Director of User Experience and Site Integration, they chose the agency whose “powerpoints sucked.” Many agencies presented them with snazzy powerpoints and lots of “swag.” She joked that she had drawers full of this swag, such as an entire booklet full of words that represented their brand. The agency they chose simply presented them with a non-flashy presentation and then sat down with them for what ended up being a “good conversation”.

Whats the moral of this story? “Know your audience”, a phrase commonly tossed around by user experience architects, holds just as true for sales professionals. Some clients are interested in the sizzle and others are interested in the steak. So, it’s always good to engage your client in a dialogue and get a good idea of their expectations before offering them unique services or solutions.

How often have you gone to the store for a quick purchase that ends up taking hours due to so many options? Finally a book which speaks to something that seems to be so true: More options – an excess of choice – is not always a good thing! Everything was easier back when we had fewer things to choose from. The author, Barry Schwartz, speaks about the over-abundance of choice in Schwartz’s talk at Google or in this shorter TED Talk.

The gist of the message is this: We have always been under the impression that it is better to have more choice since it gives us more freedom, which in turn gives us more happiness. In reality, choices tend to inundate us with so much information that it can be overwhelming and detrimental.

“There’s no question that some choice is better than none. But it doesn’t follow from that that more choice is better than some choice.” Some of the examples he gives are:

1. Shopping: There are at least 75 bottles of salad dressing in the supermarket at a given moment. Do we really need so many?

2. Healthcare: Every ailment now has multiple numbers of treatments. Drugs are now being marketed directly to us because we are now consumers of our own healthcare.

3. To Work or Not to Work: Modern technologies (laptops, PDA’s, blackberries) allow us to work at anytime, anywhere. This causes us to always have to choose whether or not to work.

Obviously, choice is a wonderful thing. But at a certain point choice can actually be a hindrance. People agree that there are too many choices in every category of consumer good – from clothes to washing machines. According to Schwartz, “People have more decisions to make than it is worth their time and trouble to be making.”

Too much choice can have detrimental effects:

• Choice can lead to paralysis – too many choices cause you to actually choose NONE!
• Overabundance of choice can cause you to make the wrong decisions since you end up selecting based upon one parameter (i.e. looks) over a more meaningful parameter (i.e., quality). How many of us have selected a sub-par bottle of wine due to its snazzy label?
• Choice can lead to regret. If something isn’t perfect, it is easy to imagine that an alternative would have been better. Regret reduces the satisfaction you get from good choices. Anticipated regret prevents you from making choices at all – you are so sure you are going to make the wrong choice that you don’t make any choice.
• We evaluate our experiences based upon what we expect them to be. More options raises our expectations – causing us to expect perfection. These high expectations ultimately lead us to less satisfaction with results, even if they are good results.
• The longer we mull over a decision, the more we comprehend the pros and cons to every option. This knowledge makes us more likely to suffer from our choice after it has been made.

So what does this mean for creators of interactive products? We should always be mindful of the perils of abundance. Interaction designers are essentially “choice architects” since we provide users options to navigate to different places and execute various actions. Therefore, we should always keep in mind that choices can have a negative effect on our users. Within reason, we should try to anticipate what is best for the user rather than inundate them with options. Since choice can cause paralysis leading users to actually choose nothing, we should organize options so that if users do nothing, they actually get what is in their best interest.

Recently the Pew Internet and American Life Project released a study on technology users, which claims that nearly 50% of Americans fall in the “low-tech” group. Is it just me, or does this number seem quite low for this day and age?

This study definitely warrants a closer inspection. One interesting trait it measures is the user’s attitude toward technology. The low-tech users are broken down into three groups: Inexperienced experimenters, Light but satisfied, Indifferent, and Off the network. 76% of Inexperienced experimenters were likely to be excited by information and communications technologies, as compared with 48% of people on average. How does this in any way categorize a user as “low tech”? Doesn’t enthusiasm for technology (even if you can’t use it or don’t own it) count for something?

In comparison, let’s look at Connected but hassled, members of the mid-range tech group who have broadband and mobile devices, but wish they didn’t. Many members of this group claim to suffer from information overload, and feel they would do just fine without the internet, email or mobile phone.

In the world of web-marketing, where does attitude come to play? As far as marketing goes, isn’t an enthusiastic novice more alluring than a jaded tech-user?