I recently bought a BMW E92 M3 where every bit of user experience is 1000-times better than what I was driving before - a Ford. It was a great departure from what I was used to. Everything on the Ford was manual, including the transmission. There were dials and knobs to tend to controlling the climate, navigation was a Tom-Tom, and switching the lights on were intentional as well as switching on the windshield wipers.
On the BMW, the climate control was automatic (but only when you press the "Auto" button, which I actually keep in manual to keep some semblance of control,) navigation was voice activated (or done through iDrive), telephone can be voice activated, mirrors dim automagically at night, wipers are rain-sensing, car audio volume increases with the speed to compensate for road and wind noise, and the list goes on.
Everything about the BMW was meant to anticipate the user's needs. And I have two distinct features to talk about here that actually warrants discussion in that it changes the driver's behavior.
The first is the seatbelt "butler". Since the M3 is a coupe, that meant the seatbelts were located way far back by the B-pillar. The only way to reach it is to stretch like Inspector Gadget, saying the magic words, "Go-go gadget arms!" But instead of doing that, the BMW has mechanical arms to hand you the seatbelt so you don't have to reach for them. But of course, this service has a time expiration. Because if you don't grab it for about 10 to 20 seconds, the arms retracts back into its hole thus releasing the seatbelt and you have to perform some gymnastics to retrieve it. Because of this time expiration, instead of tending to the radio to put on tunes for my drive, I have to tend to safety first. This time event expiration has modified my behavior in essence. Not too drastic as missiles won't fire if I don't reach for it in time, but my muscles get nicely stretched.
The second feature relates to everyone on the road wondering why the heck do BMW drivers cut people off so often? Well, non-BMW drivers will now have the answer here. The lane-changing indicator lever is one where you just push either up or down to activate the blinker for right or left movement (respectively). When the BMW driver pushes on the lever, the indicators blink three times before it gets canceled. That means the driver has three seconds to change lanes. That also means in three seconds, if you're the other driver observing the behavior of the BMW driver changing lanes abruptly, it actually isn't their fault. It's the design of the blinkers that is dictating the behavior of the BMW driver!
Granted, there are arguments in that the BMW driver could just persistently push the lever and give themselves enough time to make the lane-change, but being in such a nice, plush cockpit where the car does almost everything for you, why bother? Yes, there is a setting in the iDrive where you can deactivate the three-second blinking and keep it manual, but what fun is that? Why make me think?
But is that enough motivation to endanger the safety of others? One might also argue that some BMW drivers probably don't have an IT degree to operate the iDrive and hence cannot be responsible for their non-action to get rid of this three-second blinker. And what does the BMW driver know? The design is dictating the user behavior without them knowing about it.
So if you ever think your design decisions have no impact on the user, think again. Those who are behind the scenes designing products need an utmost ethical stance and responsibility for their actions and decisions. Without this stance and knowing the consequences of these decisions, whether intended or not, chaos will appear. Apparently, for those non-BMW drivers, it may already have.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Just Flip it.
I recently bought the latest of Android smartphones, the Samsung Galaxy S 3, in all of its pristine marble white. The device itself is larger than the Captivate I had before, and its touch as well as its larger screen size, make it feel like a mini tablet.
One of the new widget apps already installed was Flipboard. Having never seen it before, I explored its workings with its simple "flip" interaction as it goes from story to story. I've read more articles in a matter of an hour for breakfast than I have in a long time. It was a direct replacement to my daily CBS Morning Show.
I then begin to wonder, why is it that I'm more apt to consumer news on my mobile device than I am on my laptop? While the tabl...err smartphone was smaller, it had what laptop didn't - transitions. It's the transitions from story to story, page to page that engaged me more than anything else. Flipboard is proof that any application can be built by using simple transitions to enhance what its suppose to be doing - in this case, display an aggregate of current news.
I've also been a regular user of Pulse, a more customizable aggregator of online publications. But I find Flipboard to be more engaging, even though the Pulse is more personal.
So, what am I trying to say here? I'm not sure that I really have anything to say other than the fact that as of now, I'm considering more and more to get an actual tablet to facilitate my daily Interweb consumption.
Yes, I can be a late adopter.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Remove Yourself from the Equation.
It's happening again. The conversations sometimes feel like background noise, but each and every sentence said is very important to deciding which way we go in terms of design direction. Or is it? Drawing is great. Discussing is as good. Making the discussions meaningful is best. So how do you do that?
I'm going to let you in on a little secret on my unique ability.
We do this many times. Whether it's discussing the results of a usability testing session, or trying to determine what style or pattern to use in our user interface, I find that there is something missing. I sit there and stay quiet. I let others talk and concentrate on the problem and get to the root. I reflect back in what seems like a lifetime, but in fact is milliseconds, to all the years of knowledge of past usability testing sessions, the type of feedback we received and the design decisions that were made as a result. This is what I do during heated discussions - when my colleagues try to figure out the ins and outs of the results, what was said or even how the user behaved, etc., etc., etc...
This is when I remove myself from the equation.
Why do I do this? Sometimes I'm my own worst enemy. I get too attached to the outcome so I feel the need to argue or justify or persuade. What most people don't get is that great analysis comes from looking at all perspectives and not being attached to anything. Only then, after the work in your mind has been done, should you come out with something that changes other people's minds.
What happens is that most people look at the surface - what color to use on the user interface. Others look just under the surface - how does the user interface behave, or what is its immediate impact. What I do is look at all those layers, including the Why's, and beyond - through my own collected experience of UX itself. Those experiences are a part of me but they're also external to me. What I learn from it is the treasure, not the outcome itself.
I think what many of us as UX practitioners is forget the full breadth of knowledge and perspective we've accumulated over the years. And I think we've forgotten it because we're just too busy defending our design decisions or discussing something we think is profound but turns out to be something superficial. And many times, we take it too personally.
Some people think monkeys can do this. "Just train him and all things will go well."
No.
While indeed, having a starting a point is good, having someone with experience is even better. And the objective is to gain that experience from the time you're committing yourself to the practice. And it requires a lifetime to do so. It requires design knowledge, not just the practicalities of usability testing. That of course, is another topic.
Analyze well!
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Reinvigorating this blogspace
Hi there.
In the next few months, I will be reinvigorating this blogspace since there have been several developments in the UX world and the lessons learned in my profession. I'll be talking about ubiquitous computing and doing a book review I haven't posted in a long time. I will also be talking about a game I dearly love, Gran Turismo 5, which had finally been released late last year. Among the subjects, the ever blurry role of the analyst turned generalist and pseudo-designer and the challenges facing this time, design epiphanies, and finally, the refocusing of our very own Maine IxDA chapter. I will probably do the last first, since it's extremely important, necessary and timely.
See you soon!
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
UX Book Club - Sketching User Experiences by Bill Buxton
Last month we had our first UX Book Club meeting. Apparently, as I'm told, it was the first ever professional book club meeting in Maine. Really? - I thought.
After having read the book and listened to other people's thoughts about the book, it actually improved the experience of the book itself. It wasn't just me reflecting (in my head) upon what was written, and that was a fresh change. Now I'm finding that the book and the thoughts by everyone else who had attended the meeting, is starting to reform my thinking, burning new neural paths and creating new behaviors. In that respect, the UX Book Club did the job as much as the book itself.
And now, after having seen Bill Buxton in a great video at MIX'10, I understand him more and where he comes from, beginning to model how he thinks.
One of the biggest takeaways from the book (hence Bill) is the fact that:
"Design is a compromise."
I had known that for quite some time but really couldn't articulate that feeling about what Design was about in that aspect, until now. It also occurred to me that "design not being a compromise" might have been the old artisan-based way of thinking. There is no longer the genius designer that we used to think existed and much of that came from Industrial Design even though I'm certain some people don't want to admit it.
So where does this leave the UX professional? Since design is a compromise because the designer is working with all different kinds of people in different disciplines (from marketing, to engineering to sales, etc.) it requires someone who is especially empathetic to not just the users/humans using the product/application/building but also to people he is working with.
I'd like to continue on with the discussion we had from the book club. But for now, I'm going to send you to the Maine IxDA thread where there's a list of topics covered in the book.
After having read the book and listened to other people's thoughts about the book, it actually improved the experience of the book itself. It wasn't just me reflecting (in my head) upon what was written, and that was a fresh change. Now I'm finding that the book and the thoughts by everyone else who had attended the meeting, is starting to reform my thinking, burning new neural paths and creating new behaviors. In that respect, the UX Book Club did the job as much as the book itself.
And now, after having seen Bill Buxton in a great video at MIX'10, I understand him more and where he comes from, beginning to model how he thinks.
One of the biggest takeaways from the book (hence Bill) is the fact that:
"Design is a compromise."
I had known that for quite some time but really couldn't articulate that feeling about what Design was about in that aspect, until now. It also occurred to me that "design not being a compromise" might have been the old artisan-based way of thinking. There is no longer the genius designer that we used to think existed and much of that came from Industrial Design even though I'm certain some people don't want to admit it.
So where does this leave the UX professional? Since design is a compromise because the designer is working with all different kinds of people in different disciplines (from marketing, to engineering to sales, etc.) it requires someone who is especially empathetic to not just the users/humans using the product/application/building but also to people he is working with.
I'd like to continue on with the discussion we had from the book club. But for now, I'm going to send you to the Maine IxDA thread where there's a list of topics covered in the book.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Design Decisions by the Percentages
I've learned a long time ago in hockey about the concept of "playing the percentages". What this means is that a certain action or play will have a particular success factor over others given the situation. For instance, in a power play when a team is shorthanded one person, one of the best (high percentage) ways to get the puck into the neutral zone and out of your zone is to shoot it off the boards or the glass. The only risk here is having an unpredictable bounce off the glass and the puck stays in the zone. The alternative is to shoot it out in the center through a gap and risk the puck staying in the zone with the opponent quickly covering any gap. One last alternative is to actually carry the puck out of the zone in risk of shorthanding your defense further if the puck-carrier makes a mistake.
So how does this apply to the field of UX?
Well, if a certain play has a specific percentage of success, something that can be measured, it can also be applied to making design decisions - could it not?
The reason why I'm exploring this concept is because we're currently developing a U.I. Pattern Library. (Here's a case study.) And because we're rapidly developing these patterns, there will be some that need to be used immediately and thus cannot be tested right away. So we need to explore all options for a solution to a pattern. There are indeed some patterns that are "straightforward" but then there are those requiring a little more work. And with this work, we need to figure out the best solution. How better to do this than by design by the percentages?
The fact is, most UX designers and analysts have basic knowledge to design based on past data and experiences. (e.g. We know when to use radio buttons instead of checkboxes.) The caveat is that an untested pattern may be completely wrong, especially if after testing, we find out the user behavior and expectations are mismatched. By designing by percentages, we mitigate enough of the unpredictable and also keep cognoscente of our decisions and how they came to be. (This also means that there needs to be documentation that will log these decisions.)
So how can this be used immediately? To me, it's more of a concept I keep in the back of my mind. I think of alternatives and go through a cognitive walkthrough to anticipate what the user may interpret and thus behave when interfacing with the product. However, doing just that may not be as rigorous as some might like. To make is rigorous and more apparent, documentation can accompany each decision made along with alternatives and why they were not chosen. While it can take long to do, at least when the patterns are tested afterwards, the assumptions can be referenced and validated/invalidated.
In the end, this concept is not 100% correct though it does give you progress because you're spending time worthy on exploring the pattern probabilities. To adopt Bill Buxton's axiom that you can only design the framework and not the user behavior, design by percentages can at least get you one step closer to designing an effective framework that gets you eventually closer to influence user behavior.
So how does this apply to the field of UX?
Well, if a certain play has a specific percentage of success, something that can be measured, it can also be applied to making design decisions - could it not?
The reason why I'm exploring this concept is because we're currently developing a U.I. Pattern Library. (Here's a case study.) And because we're rapidly developing these patterns, there will be some that need to be used immediately and thus cannot be tested right away. So we need to explore all options for a solution to a pattern. There are indeed some patterns that are "straightforward" but then there are those requiring a little more work. And with this work, we need to figure out the best solution. How better to do this than by design by the percentages?
The fact is, most UX designers and analysts have basic knowledge to design based on past data and experiences. (e.g. We know when to use radio buttons instead of checkboxes.) The caveat is that an untested pattern may be completely wrong, especially if after testing, we find out the user behavior and expectations are mismatched. By designing by percentages, we mitigate enough of the unpredictable and also keep cognoscente of our decisions and how they came to be. (This also means that there needs to be documentation that will log these decisions.)
So how can this be used immediately? To me, it's more of a concept I keep in the back of my mind. I think of alternatives and go through a cognitive walkthrough to anticipate what the user may interpret and thus behave when interfacing with the product. However, doing just that may not be as rigorous as some might like. To make is rigorous and more apparent, documentation can accompany each decision made along with alternatives and why they were not chosen. While it can take long to do, at least when the patterns are tested afterwards, the assumptions can be referenced and validated/invalidated.
In the end, this concept is not 100% correct though it does give you progress because you're spending time worthy on exploring the pattern probabilities. To adopt Bill Buxton's axiom that you can only design the framework and not the user behavior, design by percentages can at least get you one step closer to designing an effective framework that gets you eventually closer to influence user behavior.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Video game review - Need for Speed Shift for PS3
I've rarely written about video games. Usually, I just like to play them, experience them and just enjoy it. However, there's this one game I recently bought that haven't met my expectations, and I'm ready to return it to the store. Electronic Arts just released Need for Speed: Shift. It was a big deal in the E3 gamers expo with better graphics and supposed better gameplay. It was suppose to match the caliber of Gran Turismo 5, GRID and Dirt. Let me just say - it doesn't. NFS:Shift follows the formula that the Gran Turismo series uses. Beautiful graphics and theatrics in the beginning so that the petrolheads of the world can salivate over, awesome music and even more awesome exotic, high-performance cars. NFS:Shift even has features to modify your vehicle so you can go with any kind of paint scheme you want and upgrade your car to perform better. Sound familiar?
Where NFS:Shift fails is in several areas:
1. From the start when the game is trying to determine the level of play and control settings, you are sent through a trial by driving a car on a course. If you do well, they may increase your level by reducing the number of computer nannies controlling your car and set the artificial intelligence engine to a higher level. If you do poorly, the game piles on the computer controls to a point where you don't actually drive your car anymore. Guess how I did? And this was very disconcerting because I had played driving games since Gran Turismo 2 (GT2).
For a good 15 to 30 minutes I was looking for the settings to change the level of play and rid myself of most of the computer nannies. As for the cause of this poor performance? The controller settings forced me to use a specific set of buttons for certain controls instead those I was acclimated to on Gran Turismo. Perhaps this is their way of forcing gamers to buy the overpriced steering wheel control that has a flimsy ergonomic infrastructure to support it. (Yes, I know I'm not being nice.)
2. EA put what's called, "EA Messenger" in a horrible place where it can be easily pressed by accident and pause the game. This feature is activated by the same mechanism as the accelerator (the right thumbstick) by pressing on it (R3). Unfortunately, because of this new paradigm forced upon me on the controller settings, I've actually crashed my car because of where this function is located. Obviously, there wasn't enough usability research done to foresee such an instance. 3. Loading the game is an extremely boring process. I've counted that I had to press the "O" button ("X" on NA consoles since, mine is a Japan console) 5 times to load the game all the while watching different progress bars do their thing.
Why couldn't these processes be done automatically and without my knowing? Wow me with your car graphics and not your system messages.
All in all, I really wanted to love this game, I really did. Driving the new cars make this game addictive - but each and every time, it also makes me wince because of the lack of respect of these three crucial things in the user experience. Back to GT5 for me.
Here are my recommendations for racing games for the Playstation console, best user experience listed first:
1. GRID
2. GT5 Prologue
3. GT4
4. GT3
5. Colin McRae 2
6. Colin McRae 1
7. WRC
8. DiRT
9. Ridge Racer 5
Dead last perhaps umpteenth million NFS:Shift
Where NFS:Shift fails is in several areas:
1. From the start when the game is trying to determine the level of play and control settings, you are sent through a trial by driving a car on a course. If you do well, they may increase your level by reducing the number of computer nannies controlling your car and set the artificial intelligence engine to a higher level. If you do poorly, the game piles on the computer controls to a point where you don't actually drive your car anymore. Guess how I did? And this was very disconcerting because I had played driving games since Gran Turismo 2 (GT2).
For a good 15 to 30 minutes I was looking for the settings to change the level of play and rid myself of most of the computer nannies. As for the cause of this poor performance? The controller settings forced me to use a specific set of buttons for certain controls instead those I was acclimated to on Gran Turismo. Perhaps this is their way of forcing gamers to buy the overpriced steering wheel control that has a flimsy ergonomic infrastructure to support it. (Yes, I know I'm not being nice.)
2. EA put what's called, "EA Messenger" in a horrible place where it can be easily pressed by accident and pause the game. This feature is activated by the same mechanism as the accelerator (the right thumbstick) by pressing on it (R3). Unfortunately, because of this new paradigm forced upon me on the controller settings, I've actually crashed my car because of where this function is located. Obviously, there wasn't enough usability research done to foresee such an instance. 3. Loading the game is an extremely boring process. I've counted that I had to press the "O" button ("X" on NA consoles since, mine is a Japan console) 5 times to load the game all the while watching different progress bars do their thing.
Why couldn't these processes be done automatically and without my knowing? Wow me with your car graphics and not your system messages.
All in all, I really wanted to love this game, I really did. Driving the new cars make this game addictive - but each and every time, it also makes me wince because of the lack of respect of these three crucial things in the user experience. Back to GT5 for me.
Here are my recommendations for racing games for the Playstation console, best user experience listed first:
1. GRID
2. GT5 Prologue
3. GT4
4. GT3
5. Colin McRae 2
6. Colin McRae 1
7. WRC
8. DiRT
9. Ridge Racer 5
Dead last perhaps umpteenth million NFS:Shift
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
