Syncranium - Mastering User Experience

Reinvigorating this blogspace

2011-11-13T09:35:00.001-05:00

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!

UX Book Club - Sketching User Experiences by Bill Buxton

2010-03-24T09:27:00.005-05:00

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.

Design Decisions by the Percentages

2009-12-10T13:28:00.000-05:00

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.

Video game review - Need for Speed Shift for PS3

2009-12-08T09:12:00.000-05:00

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

Learn from Polyphony

2009-10-23T11:28:00.008-05:00

We can learn a lot from game development companies like Polyphony, who is more concerned with giving their followers a great user experience instead of putting out a product out on time. The company who has developed the screen interface for the navigation and on-board system metrics in latest iteration of the Nissan GTR is doing us all a favour not to get hung up on time-to-release. And this makes sense, especially since I've been reading Alan Cooper's book, "The Inmates are Running the Asylum". Take a look at page 45 and then you'll see.

But for now, follow me.

Testing for Learnability - the quantitative side

2009-10-01T09:59:00.009-05:00

A question was posed by a good friend and colleague a while back about testing for learnability. The discussion was quite good in terms of defining possible qualitative data to compare. However, what I'd like to know, is there a simple, quantitative way of testing for learnability?

Here's my take, and unfortunately, it's only a theory for now because I haven't practiced it:

There's one metric that hasn't been mentioned and that is time-to-task. Now, what if time-to-task can be measured several times on the same task as opposed to just once? If the user is suppose to learn about how to use an application, shouldn't the time-to-task be reduced on subsequent tries? Isn't that an indication that the user have learned how to use it? When we play video games, the second or third time around seems easier to get through a level, doesn't it? So in that sense, how do we test for it?

After determining what kind of learnability you are testing for, a possible usability session may consist of the following guidelines:

1. Have the participant perform a repeated task.

2. In the series of tasks, mix in another task that could be something completely different (or something related). This disjointedness could test the user on how well they remember to perform the previous task again.

3. Increase the time between the first time and the subsequent times of performing the repeated task.

This method can be a sure way of quantifying the learnability of a particular function or process because what will happen with a successful design is that the time-to-task should be decreased with each repeated tries. Something that is very learnable may takes significantly less time than the initial stab. If there is no difference on subsequent tries, well, you know it isn't learnable.

The idea is to reduce the learning curve (dictated by time) and with this method, the time-to-task metric can be used to its full potential.

PSN Home - It's not what Sony planned it to be, I'm sure.

2009-06-25T13:58:00.006-05:00

It's been 2 months now that I have been on the PlayStation Network and Sony's PSN Home Beta. I've gotten accustomed to some of the people there, especially those at Sully's Bar. Speaking about PSN Home, I have a feeling that Sony hadn't planned on what kinds of people would be hanging out at certain places. If you've been on PSN Home, you'll know what I'm talking about. For the majority of you who don't, let me explain.

Recently, I decided to veer away from my I-am who-I associate-with String Theory. This was a double-edged sword - it was my biggest mistake and I learn something valuable. The place I was accustomed to were real people. And apparently, they hang out as I do just like in a real bar. Bar things happens, like a bit of harassment and fun banter, maybe a real drink transposed into the virtual world, it's all good.

However, when I went to this place called the Gamer's Lounge - basically a place I haven't frequented when it was busy, it was an entirely different world. In a place what was suppose to be bright, clean, modern and very friendly, the people inside this space were none of those things. At one point, I thought I had made a friend - only to find out that he was as socially inept as all of the other people in this space. The words from another person stated it all too clearly, "Oh, great! Looks like you finally made a friend!" At this point, people were starting to harrass me for no apparent reason - only because I was different in some way. I then took my last breath and left on the spot without any regrets.

The one thing I did learn, which is very personal to me, is that I shall always be grateful with the people I associate with on a frequent basis. But I digress.

I digress because I am certain that Sony had not planned on it being this way. I am certain they thought all places could be for everyone and everyone is welcome to hang out anywhere without cause of fuss or anything appauling. Well, there's this thing called human behavior where people seem to cluster around because of who they are and what they think about. That in itself is user experience - or human experience.

There was also an instance where moderators would come online thinking they'd be doing their jobs, when all of a sudden, they learn something about the human order and behavior. In fact, and especially in Sully's, there is no need for moderator because everyone there knows everyone else and police themselves accordingly. Yes, while reporting (ratting), blocking and muting tools are available and can be quite useful in some respects, the ultimate experience is self-policing.

One other example is the fact that you can decorate you personal room in any way you want. But did Sony think about putting a couch on the roof through the ceiling? Or how about placing furniture upon other furniture so they can explore or get a different vantage point of the entire 3-D space?

I guess what I'm trying to say here is:

1. Whatever you design for, there will always be someone (or group) that will use what you designed for something that wasn't intended;

2. While tools provide a means to mitigate certain pitfalls, human behavior can always do more than just the tool.

3. And of course - sometimes humans can be tools.

Support IxDA

2009-06-22T13:56:00.003-05:00

Hello to those who peruse here from time to time. I know it's only a few of you. I've embedded a widget for you to support IxDA - if you please. I've made my donation already!

Please take a look here to see what it's all about!

We thank those who have made a contribution!

Are we speaking Alien?

2009-04-01T14:48:00.003-05:00

I have a good feeling - and I'm sure many other usability practitioners have come across this - that we tend to speak a different language from developers. (Developers meaning the true sense of "coders" for lack of a better term.) Let me explain.

We recently had an educational series about UCD principles and it was well-received. It was for the developers and apparently, they learned quite a bit about what people in the UX field are most cognoscente about. And of course, everything that was taught was new to them. How could they know?

And this brings me to the point of what I dislike about about some people in our profession. There's this "we" and "them" mentality - we, being the people in UX, them, being developers or anyone else who may be labeled as ignorant. While we do know it exists, sometimes it's also all in our own mind. Yes, I used to be one of them many years ago - but that's only because I didn't truly understand what this game was all about.

It's not about battling each other because of egos (even though that's the case sometimes), and it's not because "they" didn't want to understand. It's because "we" as people in the field of UX aren't speaking a language that ordinary people can understand. (Yes, we are weird.)

We talk of wireframes and task analysis and layouts and personas, user profiles, U.I. standards, U.I. patterns and card sorting, usability testing, heurisitics, VIMM models and it goes on. So what really is this language? It's all jargon that we use to explain ourselves, but it doesn't get the message across. So what to do?

We in the UX field need a translator. It can be in the form of another person or ourselves. Either we learn the language (of ordinary English) or the Developer needs to learn our language. Which do you think is easier?

Ok, so we opted for the latter, but it wasn't easy. And we had to put it in plain english or it wouldn't be understood. Sometimes we get so caught-up in our research and our own mental models that we're not doing an effective job.

The point is, we really need to be more sensitive to our developers. We're sensitive to our users, so what makes development any different.

If we're here to serve our users, let's also serve everyone who's related to them either directly or indirectly. We're looking to make our users' life easier and so it starts by talking to development properly. It also takes some education, on both parties.

So, how about it?

Research Data needs to be told in story form

2009-01-07T13:53:00.004-05:00

A while back, I wrote about how I wasn't about the polished document. While that is still true, it also confused many of the people I served because they could not put the pieces together to make a story or even give a good interpretation. So because of this confusion, I had to review my approach. I had to make it easier for the everyday sales person, for the everyday developer and the everyday manager to review the research data.

What I found was that giving a compelling story was much more effective in communicating what is really needed from the UX perspective. While the story could be somewhat long, the point is that all the important bits are included. What also helps in such a report is credibility with the usage of direct quotes from participants, and highlight videos showing the exact problem.

So instead of just pushing out the data that I've collected, effectively leaving recommendations out of the picture (and later discovering no one else was qualified to push out recommendations), in essence, my job has also includes the translator or interpreter of users' feedback and problems. While I knew this, I didn't act on it.

Now I know and I'm better for it.

Get ready - FIGHT! Delta vs. Southwest Airlines

2009-01-05T10:08:00.005-05:00

With the previous collapse of the airline industry and now a financial crisis, the climate for competitiveness is now more important than ever. Those who take the time and revamp their customer/user experience will win. Those who do not take the time to redesign their experiences will fail and wither. Here, I will review two different airlines and what they have to offer.

Delta Airlines - Portland, ME to Atlanta, GA (with return)
I took this flight a while back for some HFI training. It was pretty straight-forward to check-in. There was a service agent there to help with everything and checking in baggage was a breeze. There also wasn't much to be said about the flight itself. However, once I got to my destination, I found out my bag had been placed on a plane two hours behind me. I had to find this out after queuing for an hour behind 100 other people at the Delta customer service desk. So I had time to kill in the airport in Atlanta - and since it was enormous, it wasn't too much of a problem - that is, until I got bored. And once I got my luggage, there was no apology, no service. I just went to the carousel where the flight had my bag and left.

On the flight back, checking-in was a little different. To deal with the sheer volume of people and flights, Delta had kiosks. Each kiosk had about 100 sqft around it so everyone had a bit of personal space (especially with luggage). The interface was a little difficult to manage - but no matter. All you have to do is call on an agent and they were more than happy to help. After using the kiosk, you line up to check your bags, which was actually quite swift. Though, after that, the experience was much the same - just get me to the destination (with my luggage) and I'll be happy.

Southwest Airlines - Manchester, NH to Orlando, FL (with return, vacation)
This airline is now known to have a good reputation for its customer service. I must admit though, when I first lined up to check-in my luggage, this wasn't the case. The queue was long just to access one of the kiosks that were lined-up along the long check-in desk. It was also chaotic. Because of the long line and the many people already at the kiosks, it was difficult to see which kiosks were open. And then once at the kiosk, there was little to no indication what we were supposed to do - contact an agent or proceed with the kiosk. With that conundrum, I waited an extra 5 minutes to ask the busy agent walking up and down the area what I should do. Apparently, once we got started, we printed our luggage tags and still had to check-in our 1-year old which took another several minutes.

With the bags checked and security checked, we headed to the gate to relax before boarding. And this is the interesting part. Since there were no assigned seats, there were instead, assigned boarding queues. Anyone could sit anywhere but 99.9% of the time, the ones boarding first sat near the front - so they could get out first. (FIFO) Because of this different procedure, I had to review the process for boarding online - and they had a specific website where you can do that.
Now I must ask - how motivated do you think you'd be to go to this website to learn what Southwest's procedures are? Booking the flight was easy when done online. I didn't have to have an agent book it for me. It was all self-serve. So that must mean learning the procedure can also be self-serve.

And when we were on the plane, the customer service didn't end. Humor was injected anywhere Southwest could. There was the pilot's immaculate imitation of Porky Pig singing a carol, the attendents' most genuine smiles, and the returning pilot telling everyone "Okay, get out," once we were docked.

The other greater customer service experience came when my mother's bag went missing. She flew Southwest as well but from Buffalo to Tampa. Southwest informed her to get to her destination and they will have it shipped to the nearest airport. In this case, it was Fort Myers. When I drove her to get her bag, it was quick. Her bag was there at the agreed time (one day after) and there was a note attached to the bag which was meant for the service agent saying, "Bag was not picked-up at Buffalo. Apologize a lot". She ended up with a $75 voucher for her next flight.

The conclusion is simple. And the difference between these two airlines' customer/user experience is simple. Make the journey memorable. Aside from the chaotic check-in for newbies, Southwest makes it pleasant. Delta on the other hand...

The Dichotomy of being in UX

2008-12-01T15:04:00.004-05:00

The age-old question most people in UX ask:

Am I a designer, or in research (via usability testing)?

For me, right now, I'm in both. I know under conventional wisdom of a usability practitioner or designer, this is a big no-no; though we do have at least one other person as a researcher so I'm off the hook for that. However, the second side of that is my colleague is starting to be trained to do some interaction designing. While that's good for the interim, it's not a good long-term solution. It's overhead that we don't need especially at times when much needs to be tested. So right now, we're in need of a great UX Designer.

It has been said time and time again - the people who test should not code. The people who code, should not test. And now, the people who design should not test nor code and vice-versa. But what happens when there's not enough manpower to cover the two parts required in better UX? One person does the designing, the other the testing - but we're not.

I come from a background where it was quite good training in Industrial Design to be able to design, test and redesign through iterations and different phases. And yes, it was indeed challenging to build up a certain amount of objectivity because there is so much emotional energy invested into the prototype and project. But that was a near virtual world, an ideal world where one person could do the amount of work of several, so I don't think it applies here as much.

Yes, more skills are being built and an understanding of the interaction elements in a U.I. is being formed when one person does the job of two. But it will need to end some time soon so we can operate entirely on our strengths and what we want to do, not just what we'll settle on for convenience sake.

There is also a battle in the mind whenever I come across a design I need to redo because of the test results I obtained. While I can remain objective, I can still feel it's not 100%. So now, we test each other's designs.

In the real world, there are teams of people. For a UX Team, there are people who are generalists and those who specialize. This article says it very well. I would think of myself as a generalists with some very good design skills - and I know I'm not the best designer. I also find the most challenging and rewarding part to be the research portion by heading the mockup off at the pass. I consider my analytical skills to be better than my designing skills.

I've heard somewhere:

"It's only when we can operate on our strengths can those around us operate the same way."

So, how about it?

Fear and Usability

2008-10-31T12:20:00.009-05:00

Here's a short.

Last week, I learned something that I shared with my colleagues and I am going to share with you right now.

Apparently, there was fear in our UX Team that some of our clients (who were also our participants) in our usability sessions, would do nothing but complain about their problems because of support or implementation issues. The fear was based on how they would undermine our efforts and make a debacle of testing our new application.

Well, if you happen to have such issues, worry no longer.

I told them:

"Firstly, there is no proof that this is going to happen."

"Second, if all we do is make things up and dwell on them, they just might come true. So in this sense, focus will quash any kind of worry."

One thing I said to calm my colleagues was the fact that based on my own experiences:

"Once they see a new screen and that's all they see, and you listen to them with keen ears, all their worries that could become vicious attacks, all disappear. This is because they're concentrating on giving you proper feedback to your study."

Have your participants focus on the task at hand and this will give you the results you want.

Google Chrome - Part 2

2008-09-05T12:47:00.006-05:00

Okay, so I haven't really used Google Chrome all that much since I've installed it. I think that say something about the new browser so many other people are talking about.

Anyway, here's some other things I've discovered:

9. There's an "incognito" window where cookies, browsing history and other personal information that can be recorded are erased after the browser has been closed. This leaves no trace for any websites to track the user's whereabouts and browsing habits. How useful is this really? Well, you can decide for yourself.

10. I like the fact that my gmail account is integrated with my blog account using Google Chrome without having to click on the "remember me" checkbox. A small thing indeed. I'm just slightly hesitant on having my default Firefox 3 browser remember me for some strange, inexplicable reason.

11. You can create shortcuts to your desktop easily of websites you've visited. I haven't done this by doing this manually. I'm guessing Google figured it's not being done because it's too involved? Perhaps, but it also could be that not everyone thinks of webpages on the desktop. The desktop is for documents and applications, not for websites. This particular user habit would be very hard to change.

12. It doesn't work well at all with Facebook - a site I frequent daily. I don't know how many other applications it doesn't like. Feel free to post a comment to let me know.

All in all, if Google is trying to shift the paradigm of the browser and the mental model of the user and they've completely failed at it. While it may be embraceable, as it is now, it's not enough of a change to take notice - which is why I've barely touched it from the install date. If however, they're doing it incrementally, they may have something. But I believe most of all, it's a great browser for Google to facilitate the impending release of their new smartphone, with the Android O/S installed. It's also a great way to increase their search engine business aided by mobile computing.

So really, Google Chrome is nothing more than just another browser, for now. And without any sparkly bits.

First Impressions of Google Chrome

2008-09-03T07:30:00.003-05:00

The first thing I notice about this supposedly new browser is that the user's mental model has shifted ever so slightly. The deviation is enough to make it different from other browsers like Firefox but not too drastic so that it's embraceable. Here's what's different:

1. Screen real estate has been given back to the user with the omission of the File/Edit... menu system. Google's take is that we really do not need that technology. The message they're sending is that the content is what's most important, not the adminsitrative functions.

2. It's the tabs that encapsulate the experience - and because of that, the integrated URL and Search field are within the tabs, not the other way around as in Firefox.

3. The URL and Search fields are one and the same - it's integrated. Now is the time when simple english can be entered into the URL field instead trying to remember some dot-com address. You can also choose your own search engine for this integration (though I haven't tried anything other than Google just yet). This in turn means that search engines will be more important than ever in managing content on the Internet. It's a push that helps Google's business model.

4. I can't seem to find my bookmarks in a way I'd like to access them. It's using cascading menus instead of the stationary left-panel which requires more motor control - which could present a problem to some less-abled users.

5. Well, I just demoed the application to my colleague showing the integrated URL and Search field and it just crashed my Firefox as it was running at the same time. Bug!

6. Transparent administrative and status functions - they don't appear unless you want them or that they show something important. I'm guessing the whole idea still is to give the screen real estate back to the user.

7. When creating a new tab to view, you are instantly brought to your most visited sites as a layout preview as well as a short list of the most recent bookmarks. While this is a great idea, I'm not always insterested in what I've just viewed or bookmarked. It's a good thing they've kept the "Open in new tab" function when I come across a link.

8. It's much faster than Firefox 3.

I'll be adding more to this in the near future so please stay tuned.

Anticipatory design done correctly

2008-08-01T15:52:00.002-05:00

(This posting was written in November of 2007 and posted finally today.)

(Beware of some car-speak.) I was looking for a specific part for my car because the coolant was leaking from the thermostat plug to the ground. This part was an o-ring and it fit around a plug. The problem was that I didn't want an OEM (original equipment by manufacturer) part as that part is defective and doesn't take into consideration temperature variances, hence the leaking. So began my search through the forums and I took some keywords to Google where I found a supplier. Here's the website: http://www.mcmaster.com At first glance, I wondered if I was in the correct place. But what I've noticed in many e-commerce parts sites is that functionality is high, given that you can find the part, and the usability is somewhat low. That's evidenced by sites like NAPA, AutoZone and AdvancedAutoParts. 99% of the time, you have to go to the store to get the part for a specific vehicle. If the part isn't online after executing a search (especially on obscure parts), it's either not cataloged or the system is incomplete.

Taking a look at the McMaster website, its purpose is different. Among all the thousands of different mechanical parts, hardware and software, the user begins by generating a scent using the search functionality. However, this is no ordinary search engine. At first, I wasn't sure what to type in, so I just entered the part number I found. Results came back positive and that was easy. But the kicker came in my second search where I entered "battery terminal covers". And immediately, anticipatory design kicked-in. A list of suggestions came up for me to select. There were no part numbers or items without pictures. Upon selecting the correct category, part numbers and their corresponding part numbers came on-screen.

Now THIS is what e-commerce should be! I think those other automotive vendors could learn something from McMaster.

Be definitive in your recommendations

2008-05-07T14:16:00.002-05:00

...especially when you know a principle you've learned and you need to share that information.

There are times when recommendations are needed because others' expertise are not sufficient. What I'm finding with most people in UX is that they use the word "depends" almost like it's their second breath. I believe there are times that the word "depends" doesn't always work. It can sometimes be misconstrued that we in UX do not know what we're talking about - and because of that, it becomes a credibility issue.

One of the things I very much dislike in people is wishy-washiness, much like how the cartoon Charlie Brown used to be. I'd rather have a definitive answer with options than to just say "depends". I think we owe it to the people we're serving because they don't think like us. To the developers, to the managers out there whom we've been confusing all those times, we need to communicate in such a way that brings home the point.

One thing I like to do is to give the people I serve, options. Options meaning ways to solve an issue or problem because ultimately, it's to the developer or the manager's judgment to go about how they will accomplish the usability objective. Their code and their management makes the product work behind the scenes, so we UX practitioners need to be definitive because the developers and managers are definitive.

No one ever got anywhere being on the fence - they usually get speared by the tip sitting on it too long.

Users will do what it takes to make it work

2008-04-28T14:22:00.004-05:00

Are your users trying to be too nice? Are they not telling you the truth? One of the things they also might be doing is to do what it takes to make your software application work - even if it means making them cry.

From the user testing I've seen so far, time and time again I keep seeing the same thing. There are times when the user will do all this other stuff in order to make the application work. All this other stuff meaning having to create additional reports, compiling data into more usable forms, etc...

This is where usability actually fills in the gap. Contextual inquiry is the best method to get at these pain points and to create better efficiencies. It's usually the case wherever there's a case of organizational inefficiency does the user create secondary tasks to compensate for the application's lack functionality.

So build it in! I was once told by a colleague that the user should keep their calculator at hand when going through a financial transaction. That's not the point! To make the user adapt and adjust to our applications by these secondary methods only means that the design isn't good enough. And besides, isn't computing power a lot quicker than that of a calculator?

So when the next time you have a session and you see that the user is really trying, and may be going beyond their immediately means to complete the task, that may tell you something. It might mean back to the drawing board.

The IKEA experience

2008-04-14T08:27:00.005-05:00

On Saturday, my wife and I were looking for a shelf system and I thought to look on the Ikea website, thinking I could possibly order it just like any other e-commerce website. I chose the 43" Lack system in black-brown, even though the picture didn't give me too much detail. I had, however, seen this color/grain before. So I placed the order entering my address and confirming the order details, and found out I hadn't entered my payment information. There wasn't a way to do it, and the website had confirmed my order had been placed in the last step.

Does this mean Ikea is going to give me the product for free? No. Of course not. Instead, they sent me an email stating that the order had to be processed manually. Welcome to 1995.

Another email was sent in the next few hours telling me the shipping cost ($20.10) and that delivery would take 2 to 3 weeks! The shipping cost was more than the product itself, and the time span was clearly unacceptable. Being such a large retailer, one would think that Ikea would spend more on their e-commerce site. The reason why e-commerce sites exist is because of their convenience - which Ikea did not have any. Instead, I would regard it to be an online catalog.

With the Ikea website having failed, I was determined they next day to experience their store located in Stoughton, MA. I saved their address into my GPS and we make it a road trip. It's Tim Horton's for breakfast and then we're off!

The drive takes 2 hours and several dollars of tolls. I estimate that this same $20.10 (cost in shipping) would be devoured by our time and petrol. We're exchanging this money for a road trip and to getting out of the house, relegating ourselves to the brick and mortar Ikea experience.

Let me just say - it's big! It's actually larger than the stores in Canada - and not quite as busy. Two levels of parking plus another lot on the other side. With a little bit of rain in the forecast, the covered parking was really convenient. We park in a space where there's a main pedestrian throughway to the entrance.

By the time we reached the doors, I get hungry. There's a restaurant in the upper level where they served cheap food, but good food, and enjoy a bit of scenery through their enormous windows. We ordered a chicken wrap and I had a smoked salmon salad which was branded as a "Swedish delicacy". (It was just layers of smoked salmon and some leafy greens.)

After lunch, we head on to the Ikea maze where it's akin to DisneyWorld - lots of screaming kids and lineups waiting for an exciting experience - but with furniture. While I enjoy the creatively set-up rooms and uniquely styled but affordable furniture, I dreaded having to go through the maze. We took many shortcuts to get to our product that we had to pick out of the warehouse ourselves and check-out ourselves.

So was it really worth it? After the whole ordeal was done, I must admit I enjoyed the drive more than the store. The Ikea experience wasn't what I expected online. I am very disappointed that their concept of e-commerce was less convenient than their competitors (i.e. Target). And then to get the product sooner, I had to go through the entire 1990's ordeal of getting into my car, drive four hours round-trip, wondering if I had enough toll money, and fight with the horrid drivers on the way.

I did, however, enjoy my time with my family. That more than made up for it.

When technology becomes too much

2008-04-10T11:35:00.004-05:00

As a self-proclaimed petrolhead (aka automotive enthusiast), I've pretty much had it with technology especially when it has to do with cars. I don't mind the advanced technology involved in producing more horsepower. Nor do I mind eco-friendly concepts that makes the engine more efficient to run. What I don't like are the Swiss-army-knife gadgetry that is so sophisticated, they are pawned-off as safety features.

For example, now there's a system where it tells the driver whether there's a car coming up or driving within your blind spot. This will prevent you from making a bad lane change and perhaps sideswiping a nearby car. But - what about turning your head to check your blindspot when you make the lane-change? I mean, what's the point of driver education if we have all these devices to guide us in what's suppose to be the normal activity of driving?

Another device aids in slowing down the car when it's in cruise control, then speeds up when the traffic has either gained speed or the obstructing car moved into another lane. Yet another device does the parking for you. Short of having an IT degree, all you have to do is read a thick manual and practice and learn how to use the system before engaging it. And now with the proliferation - no, make that saturation of GPS navigation units, you can no longer get lost. Though there have been instances where drivers have driven someplace on the virtual map but found a lake in the way.

I swear, the art of driving is being lost.

So what does this have to do with usability?

Since the art of driving is being lost, the driver is no longer a driver with all these computer-nannies. The activity we used to love so much is making us, the driver, operate like a systems manager. It used to be that there were only four things to take note of:

the ignition
the pedals
the steering wheel
and the gear changer.

Now cars such as BMW M3's and Nissan GTR's Have anywhere from 8 to 14 different settings to adjust suspension, differential, throttle and traction control systems. So doesn't it seem that technology is compensating for the lack of driving sensibilities and spatial awareness?

In this sense, these gadgets and systems become interference, especially to those who have been driving a long time without these technologies - and that's a majority of the people on the road! And when technology becomes interference, they become liabilities to the user experience - too much stress, too much cognitive load, too much memory load. Quite often, these gadgets turn obsolete because all it was, was a novelty. And novelties wear out fast.

On the other side, perhaps it's a godsend. The ability to handle a 3-ton machine wrapped in glass and metal in close proximity is getting quite stressful especially in highly populated areas. So is it really better to add more stress by adding more gadgets to make sure you get to point B safely?

The automotive purist in me still says, "No." While driving is still driving, commuting is not driving. Commuting is the act of lining up to get to a place the same as 10 other people.

So what is the benefit of implementing systems such as these? In one word - marketing. In two, product differentiation. But then, ABS (anti-lock braking systems) have become standard issue because it was so good. I'm talking about other gadgets like that notorious rear-view camera.

So what to do? Reduce the amount of computer-nannying. It's almost as if the manufacturers don't trust the drivers anymore. Kind of like how TPMS (tire pressure monitoring system) was legislated to be standard equipment on every new car.

By reducing the amount of computer nannying, you're eventually putting less stress on the driver in managing the computer. This is a case where more features is not beneficial. A case where keeping it simple really makes sense in reducing accidents and saving lives. A little common sense - when practiced, does way more than a computer system ever could.

And that, my friends, can make all the difference.

Basics: Stop explaining your design to users

2008-04-02T09:39:00.004-05:00

Some people think that by offering an explanation to their users during a usability test session, it alleviates the confusion and the pain that makes users confused.

That is not the point!

The point of user testing is testing the design - not making others feel better. While it is necessary to accommodate for scheduling and to be polite, making users feel better because of confusion and bad design is not the way to go. In many of my sessions, I've had users do things that were not intended for its purpose. Certain clicking behavior and sequences weren't as I intended. It was because of the lack of better design - not the lack of the user's understanding of the design.

To explain to the user what the design was all about defeats the purpose of the usability test. It becomes a demo and not a test. And when this happens, the results become skewed and unusable.

So what happens when a user complains about the design or they're misunderstanding the product? It could be that you've chosen the wrong user. Most likely, it could be the design isn't up to what the user expects.

That's why testing and design needs to be iterative - to allow for incremental change that is better than the last iteration.

And most of all, have faith in your users. Acknowledge all their feedback. You can later filter out the feedback that are less relevant. And don't make the user feel like they don't know what they're doing. Always lead it back to the design and apologize for the design - not to yourself or any other person.

By removing yourself from the design and the test session, to remain objective, is the best thing you can do to get the best results - and without bias.

UX Track - Mix08

2008-03-27T13:59:00.003-05:00

I love cars. I especially love the Aston Martin brand. So I just stumbled upon this video previewing Aston Martin's new website:

Also, a great resource about user experience in the MIX08 conference. I have yet to see the videos and I'm excited about the find, so talk later!

UX Track - MIX08

UX Documents - how useful are they?

2008-03-03T14:45:00.003-05:00

For the past several months, we've been interviewing for a replacement position to compliment our 1.5 person team. Out of one interview, we came across an example of a greatly formatted document, looking somewhat like an ISO document delineating everything from the purpose to the actual design recommendations after user testing. I hadn't had a really good look at this document,though I did see headings for it and detailed visuals and screenshots. But then I wondered, how useful is it really?

I've created documents like that and had thought in the past that they were being read and extremely useful to get the message across. Enter now, this past year, where I have yet to write a complete report, printed and bound with the best binding plastic, the clearest transparent cover and proper vinyl backing, ready for distribution to the internal masses. So what have I really done to get the message across?

At one point, I was tired of writing up something spectacular, something so detailed and thorough, and extremely well-written, so long that - no one had the time to read it. Fed-up with my old habits, one of the questions I asked myself was: "How can I serve my peers better?"

Marshall Mcluhan's most popular quote was, "The medium is the message." If this is the case, then what gives a bigger message? A slick document that nobody reads or the raw data collected by my user testing, the video footage, the analysis spreadsheet, the emails and the prototypes?

Yes, this would mean a somewhat less organized route - but hey, isn't designing and iterations always messy?

So instead of the "prized document", I helped developed better access points for the usability data online. While this was centralized, the medium still became the message: the sometimes boring footage where I forget what to say, the analysis spreadsheet that have inconclusive remarks, the emails and forum messages asking the so many questions we have no answers for, the prototypes that *almost* work. I left nothing to the imagination.

In giving my peers access to the work without a filter, the credibility of usability work has increased, the time to deliver the results decreased, and more effort goes towards to the raw work - not to polish it up for presentation.

Indeed, for me at least, the day and age of the slick document has ground to a halt. It's no longer what I aspire to - and here's hoping you do the same.

Holistic Design

2008-02-06T13:48:00.000-05:00

I've been thinking a lot about what holistic design means and what it incorporates. While I know that the deliverables make up the tangible parts of design, there's also that innate understanding, that magic that happens when I go through all the data and all the analysis, and that whole process becomes something beyond myself, something that uses up all my faculties.

On the tangible side, the deliverables are quite simple - deliver results in a way that encompasses nearly every facet to paint the picture. This inherently also sells the process. Such deliverables and their benefits include:

- video footage of user testing - aids in proof of user actions and behaviors;
- actual scripts that delineates the user task set for testing - discloses the scientific method and its validity;
- compilation of the data and its analysis - introduces the thought processes (in design and the user) and frequent occurrences in user behavior;
- emotional metrics within its context - to learn how much users trust and feel about the application in certain instances, and how motivated they are;
- baseline expert review metrics - how do you know if you've improved if you don't know where you've been?;
- versions of the mockups, especially before and after, as well as the program/mockup used in the testing sessions.

As for the intangible parts of the process, this is where design sense comes in. Those who don't have it will struggle. Those who do have it and don't know it, won't struggle as much but the communication of it will be difficult. Those who have it and know about it will have a foundation to build upon so all the rest of the intangibles become tangible in a very instinctive way. Most of this can be communicated through design.

What I've been finding so far is that those whose approach is holistic, go farther than those who don't.

Empower your team

2008-01-16T09:55:00.001-05:00

Do you know what kind of impact you have when you've included your project development team into your user testing? I'm sure not many realize the benefits of this. While I'm sure most researchers, kind of like the scientific type would rather hide in a dark room to do their tests and only give out findings and recommendations later on so that there are no "biases" or outside forces co-mingling to create skewed results, there are better more efficient and effective ways to get the message across.

The goal for me has been to find ways to empower our team. Find ways so that the development team create their own message from what they have seen and experience by watching user testing. No hearsay reports, no convincing, and very little person to person influencing to design decisions.

By watching user testing, the team gain a few things:

1. Perspective - It's no longer by the developers or sales, it's all about the user and how they go about using the application. While some may say the user is wrong, or they're unfamiliar with it, or they're doing things wrong, one cannot argue with their actual mental patterns, their previous experience, make up all their user behaviors up until the time of testing.

2. Thinking towards a solution - the instant the team sees a user have a problem, the team sees ways in their mind to improve the program concurrently with what just happened in testing. By doing this, it takes the pressure off the usability professional and empowers the team with instant information - a catalyst to improvement.

3. Individual contribution to masterminding - This is the last point to this cascade. We all know - hopefully, that masterminding is one of the most effective tools to get to where we want to be instead of where we don't. By masterminding our design solutions and understanding the catalyst in its different facets, the team no longer designs in a vacuum. Also as individuals, there is some self-gratification to a better job done well.

By empowering my team, I've pushed-out the knowledge to create other ideas, not from myself. The team takes ownership and makes these kind of battles more personal. And with it, the combined effort applied is greater.

3 more Principles

2007-11-08T11:37:00.000-05:00

So you're finally out! You've just completed your usability training from a commercial organization like HFI, or you've taken a program in Bentley College or Carleton University. Now what? Does the learning stop? Quite obviously, no. In fact, the real learning has just begun. While courses and programs give a basis and fundamentals from which to work on, the application of this knowledge is where you really start to learn. Please note, I said "Start". Even applying this knowledge is not enough. So really, when is enough really enough? From what I've learned over the past years are three timeless principles that contribute to the success of any businessperson:

Read
Listen
Associate

Read - Read books and manuals for reference so that when you come across a situation you need more help in, refer to your materials. Also look for articles on the web that relate to UX that may give you a larger perspective on something you are encountering or may encounter in the future. It has been known that when a person reads, they retain more than 90% of the material because the brain is more active in producing visuals that interpret words to pictures.

Listen - I know for me, I have yet to do this. I have yet to plug myself into an audio book or a podcast. What I have done in fact is connect to some of HFI's webcasts on some of the topics I find interesting or relevant to what I'm currently doing. Video is just as effective a learning tool as audio as visual examples can really hit home what is being explained.

Associate - We have a local usability community that meets every month. Unfortunately, I was told by a colleague that I missed the entire year and I am guilty for not following this principle. It is in a physical forum that we learn the most from. There's nothing like telling a story and listening to them to impact others around you whether you're in a job or in your own business. This goes for success-thinking - if you want to be successful, associate with like-minded successful people. I also find it to be quite fun.

As a lesson then, continuous learning and growth is crucial to anyone looking to become successful. As an example, I heard that the GE corporation has been known to be one of the most advanced companies because of their expenditures on human resources and learning. Most people that come into the company are in fact retrained so they can "unlearn" what they've learned in traditional schooling.

Talk about assimilation to the extreme.

Focus on "BE-ing" instead of "DO-ing"

2007-11-01T13:39:00.000-05:00

Here's some words of wisdom:

"We are human beings, not human doings."

With that said, while I see so many sites offering much insight into the outside world in techniques, ethnographic studies, case studies, etc. , not everyone knows what it takes to be the person on the inside. Enter, this blogspace - the one you're reading right now.

So to be a usability professional, user experience designer, usability analyst, user interaction designer and all these titles, one thing I've found in common, is that each of these positions require what I call, Design Sense. Without Design Sense, there is no distinction between good design and bad design. And Design Sense is not acquired overnight - it takes immense practice, sometimes years, and other times just days depending on the individual.

We had a discussion about how some corporations embrace the full user experience or usability from everything within their offices, making sure they're Feng Shui-compliant or to make certain structures accessible by the physically challenged. The fact is, it's not nearly as much about usability - it's merely a by-product of the actual design focus or Design Sense.

While we all know users are the worst designers (leave the designing to the designers!), we also know that they are instead the best people to provide feedback so we can change the design of any product. Being able to translate this also takes practice and a sort of innately-developed skill that not everyone has - it's more a sense of being, living in the present, taking in all the factors and then being able to produce. The translation gets lost sometimes because it's metaphysical - primarily in the brain, heart and soul of the designer (and not just in the brain).

And thus is defined as Design Sense.

One might ask, "How do you become a person that has this Design Sense?" Unfortunately, it's not as easy as exposing yourself to many pictures or products filled with great design - you might still be oblivious to this after that. Perhaps then, a slideshow juxtaposing words of good versus bad with a picture, just like those in psychological experiments for conditioning might help? Nope.

To really develop a Design Sense, you must do it. You must create and refine, create and refine. Get feedback, create and refine. Or these basic steps:

Action, feedback, correction, action.

Get into an art or design class. Study architecture, still-life, industrial design, color theory, art history, drawing and painting.

Being a person with Design Sense also means dressing appropriately for certain times and events, making sure that not only is the color palette appropriate for your skin color and hair (as well as your aura), but also making sure the style is correct.

I must say that even though I'm writing about Design Sense, I cannot really pinpoint exactly what makes a person like me who has it, except to say that it's about having experiences that are timeless. And it's through these experiences that create the person who I am.

Certification - Part 2

2007-07-31T09:14:00.000-05:00

I was in search for some information, something specific to find a solution for some variances in the overall conceptual design. Trying not to "make it up", I came across a few articles, only to find out later they were out-dated. The Internet can be unfriendly like that. I came across this article talking about patterns in HCI design. While somewhat useful, the fact that it was linked to a known source for usability information and without a date on the link, it proved to be useless.

Useless because looking back at my study material , my guideline books I have from my HFI Usability Certification, it has already solved some of those issues. I say some only because of the latest innovation in using ribbon interfaces in Microsoft's Office 2007.

So the question came up again, was the certification worth it? Indeed it was because if it weren't for the fact that the most basic information is available to me at all times, I'd be going to many different links, websites and pages still wondering when can there ever be a central location for all of this information.

Which then also brings to the issue, what if I have a specific question that I want answered by different people?

In usability, there's very little support.

Because of that, perhaps then, there should be a forum? Something I think needs to happen because I have yet to come across one with complete professional interactivity.

So here we go, the dawn of something new: http://syncraniumue.proboards92.com/index.cgi?

Certification - worth it?

2007-07-05T07:04:00.000-05:00

Okay, so I've been urged to write about this since it took some time and effort to get me to this stage. Last month, June 13th to be more exact, I took the Human factors International Certified Usability Analyst exam. It was indeed a "doosy" since there was a lot of material to be covered in just 2.5 hours. 100 questions in total and it's an open-book exam and I had to choose the best answer - of course, there's only one answer each question.

I failed the first one 3 months before that, only because I barely studied. The minute I discovered I was only three questions off from passing, I vowed to shoot higher - 80%. So over the course of three months, nearly every day, I studied by creating an index I could use to search through during the exam. This was my way of studying - and it worked.

Now, I'm a certified anal-ist, that is, anal-ise about details meaning to be extremely thorough before a decision can be made as to what is best for certain interfaces. Of course, I don't anal-ise all the time as some designs are more apparent than others. But now I think differently.

I was doing laundry the other day and found out I almost put the dial to the wrong setting. The indicator wasn't marked completely to enable accurately setting the dial. Think of the catastrophic proportions that could have happened! Okay, so it's not life-threatening, but it could have been a pain.

So now, I'm constantly thinking about ways to improve user experience when things go awry. The second example, having to go get gas yesterday at a Mobil station instead of my usual Sunoco. First off, to cancel a transaction took over 1 minute - or it felt like that. Then I had to re-enter the information. After finishing pumping the gas, I selected to have the receipt print out - getting it out itself was a chore. I had to flip a cover up just to get at it, then it wouldn't come out entirely so it got ripped. Compare this with the experience of the Sunoco station - clear markings, no need to cancel a transaction and if you do, it doesn't take over one minute, receipt is taken out without obstacles - clearly it was a better machine.

Third example - yesterday I was also teaching my wife to drive a stick-shift. How does that happen with a beginner when she couldn't even "know" what gear she was is without having to stall it a couple of times before knowing she did all the correct things aside from shifting to the correct 1st gear? So really, it doesn't because there's no indicator, no affordance for the user to discern between the correct and the incorrect without having to put some strain on the drivetrain - it's a good thing the gearbox was built by the same company as Porsche's trannies or it might have been toast. So in the end, it discouraged her to continue - until the next time.

Fourth example - reading about someone having to modify their steering wheel to one that had aluminum sections on the top and bottom. So, what if the car has been in the sun and the wheel has been exposed for a certain time in the summer? Doesn't it burn the driver's hands? Of course, there's still other thicker leather parts. What if the driver forgets? According to the person doing this modification, he said Porsche didn't want to make the wheel too thick that the driver didn't get enough "steering response". So I asked, how about just putting less power steering into the system? A Lotus doesn't have power steering and is very responsive, and my car, a 2002 SVT Focus have less power steering than the later models - I've tried this and the later models felt like I was driving a boat! So in this case, reducing the system input could have improved the user experience.

So do I think being certified is worth it? Yes, up to a certain point. I just have to control my thoughts as now, I might be more critical than ever. The good thing is that it's about systems and not people.

Experts - the detriment of usability development?

2007-05-23T15:08:00.000-05:00

I have one philosophy going - try not to be the expert of the program - instead, let the domain experts tell you what they know. This way, you can remove yourself from all the noisy data and the intricacies of certain ways of doing things. What I try to find most of all, is to ask the right question to compel a better response to find the answer.

Of course, easier said than done. To NOT become the expert requires almost complete removal of yourself and the ego some designers or usability practitioners might have. I heard of one definition of what certain politicians are suppose to do - represent their constituents - namely, our users.

So in that case, remain objective in no matter what you do. Most of all, embrace uncertainty because even though I might have to learn or become familiar about a certain program, all I really need to do is learn enough to understand the why's and the how's and the sequence that they come in so that even the sequence or its fundamentals can be shifted to improve productivity.

I'm finding that the experts that give me the data can sometimes be too much - so I read between some lines and find the fundamentals, something the novice user can understand. Because let's face it, the experts and the expert users aren't necessarily your everyday user - what about those coming aboard to learn the program? To dumb-down the level on conceptual understanding translated through a less complex and task-flow streamlined interface is the way to go, and I believe this eases the tension more for these expert users. They become experts for a reason - the interface is sometimes too difficult to understand, so they go about learning everything within the program so that they can explain it to someone who's a novice. Ever thought of that perspective?

If you keep it simple, in no matter what you do, you'll get the message across a lot better and people will use your programs more often with less hassles. And so, not as many "experts" develop.

A process for digesting user feedback

2007-05-02T11:27:00.000-05:00

One thing I've learned through the television program CSI, is that the evidence doesn't tell all. In the case of user experience design, neither does user feedback.

If I just blindly follow the user feedback, without combining principled thought into your designs, I would just end up with very little functionality or something unusable. The fact of the matter is, any time I come into such feedback, either positive or negative, there's always something to be learned here. Most of all, question the fundamentals - question the feedback.

I ask myself why someone says what they said. Is there a better way where I'd be able to change that perspective but tweaking my design? I usually answer - "Of course". And that's where better ideas come to solve the problem. I focus on the desired result, asking myself - "I want them to say -this- about the interface, now how could I go about getting that result?"

I look at many things in user feedback.

1. Patterns - namely, user habits.
2. "Negative" feedback - it's not always negative. There's actually more to learn from it.
3. Why it was interpreted the way it was - find the causes.

I then look at possible steps to correct or enhance the user experience in small bits at first, then use a bit of my subconscious (i.e. experience) to guide me. In these steps, I usually do several quick prototype iterations either in my head or on a whiteboard where I can explore solutions and its interactions to solve the inherent usability problems. Then I translate the best solutions into the actual mockup.

This is just one of the ways where digesting user feedback is taken in little steps - and systematically at that.

Five points to focus for UX

2007-04-18T18:56:00.000-05:00

1 - Forgo the Ego
I don't let my ego enter into my work - at all. Would I say 100%? Most definitely. The user is always right. Or rather, the user is mostly right only because there are certain priorities that have to be taken into consideration. I don't take some user feedback too literally, meaning I won't take feedback and immediately implement them without further thought. There are also times when I must ignore the feedback only because it either doesn't make sense to fit it into the design. That doesn't happen too often.

What I always do is to let the user speak in spite of poor quality feedback. I let the user be heard regardless and by doing that, I serve them better. I also know that in order to be flexible, my ego has no place in my work. I let the user tell the story. I'm only a messenger.

2 - Prioritize the Plan
What I need in order to have User Experience successfully implemented is by prioritizing the plan. It's not just enough to go around wandering the software development roadmap without any dates or focus, hoping that Development will do its duty. It simply doesn't work that way. If any place is worthwhile going, it needs to be defined in a specific manner, with dates and with priorities.

3 - Know thy User
If you don't know what your user is doing, how will you be able to sell the software? It's as fundamental as that. Most of what software development and for that matter, User Experience is about is to fill the user void. Other times it's to actually create and fill the void at the same time - that's when users didn't even know that they need a better experience in productivity savings or improved efficiency. Better User Experience provides that.

4 - Test, test and test some more
Usability testing will reveal all that is wrong and right about the concept. Advanced Prototype testing will tell you where users will have the most trouble and areas where they are successful in performing certain tasks. Testing and the results that come with it is the cornerstone of change. Break it, fix it,then break it and fix it some more.

5 - Apply the Correct Principles
That means to further your own knowledge by taking a certification course in usability or just merely keeping in touch with current best practices and timeless principles. There are many resources out there. And just like any successful career or vocation, that extra "edge" will always propel you forward.

It's more than just a checklist

2007-03-22T08:15:00.000-05:00

I had it in my mind that usability was nothing more than just a checklist.

I was wrong.

It wasn't just about heuristics or just developing then following a bunch of guidelines blindly. It's more than that. So I ask myself, what is it about this practice that makes it more?

There needs to be understanding - a total and complete removal of ego so that I am able to learn what I need to, asking the questions of "Why?" the whole time. And with this, I create an environment that is more open. What I attract around me are people that will think the same way by looking at the challenge in front of us and coming to a resolve.

Right now, we're in the midst of starting the first ever Agile Development methodology. It has never been tried on this end, while other companies have been doing for so many years. To be able to survive and then to thrive in this kind of methodology requires open-minded people. It's not really about "having their say" as much as combining the efforts together, to mastermind ideas and form them into reality.

The challenge for me right now is whether or not reality can be created as fast as the mind can think.

I think I can.

Adaptive User Interface

2007-03-06T12:16:00.000-05:00

I've just downloaded and installed the trial version of MS Office 2007 with the "ribbon" interface. In just a few minutes of playing around with it, I've learned that this is probably the first interface I've come across that has an Adaptive User Interface (AUI).

By adaptive, I mean the interface (in both high and low levels) actually changes based on the context of the activity involved. The actual menu items are not user-controlled - instead they are based on user behavior and their tasks. For instance, additional first-level choices appear when the user is performing, say, a table creation or edit, or a picture or art object creation or edit. Specific functions also change based on the object that is selected for either formatting or editing, resizing etc..

The idea is to have the system use anticipatory design practices to better predict user behavior and flow with the daily interactions. Whether or not the system becomes smarter with use is up to the time factor.

Taken this further, I can definitely see an AUI that has algorithms that actually anticipate user actions before they happen. But how could this be without digging into the human brain? This is where science fiction becomes science fact - and it seems we're getting closer to this every day.

As for actual AUI's being in use, I will have to research this subject more to give me my perspective.

** Okay, so by Adaptive, you can say the interface is adaptive if there's personalization functions (displaying or hiding toolbars) as opposed to what I'm thinking in full anticipatory design model, with use of perceived artificial intelligence.

Usability Findings is like an episode of CSI

2007-02-27T17:21:00.000-05:00

I'm a big CSI (Crime Scene Investigations) fan and I'm starting to come across some parallels on how the usability profession is very much like solving a crime - or in this case, the crime of un-usability. So here's my take:

Where this parallel starts is when product support finally tells the development team that users can't take this frustration any more. "Do something about it!" they would cry. So the manager comes to the usability professionals after determining it might have something to do with usability - usually because it wasn't covered before.

So, as usability professionals, we start investigating. We first look at the data given to us by support - do some supposition and hypothesizing, some reflection, some research. We also use observational techniques, question those suspects that may be violating the usability laws.

We pour some heuristic phenol into the samples and find out there is blood - instant proof that someone has bled from the unforgiving usability issue. Let's just hope the user doesn't have carpel tunnel because of it!

We conduct more tests to prove or disprove our hypotheses. "Let the data tell the story" is our mantra. Through this, we can find the culprit - the issue that's holding us back to release 6.0 from version 5.9.0.3.

The blue UV lights of remote testing tells some more, uncovering and unraveling more than we wanted. The task flow DNA tells us little molecular and granular stories that something is fundamentally wrong.

"So what did you find?" ~~Grissom~~ Neilsen would ask.

An eyebrow goes up in surprise as the team hands him the final paper, the usability finding.

The issue is then resolved by confronting the ~~developer~~ ~~user~~ offender. He/she sweat in their pants for minutes in the interrogation room before he/she finally gives it up. They can't take it anymore!

The offender confesses.

The difference is, no one goes to jail. No one gets reprimanded. Usability on anything can always be improved.

So please, feel free to confess before going through an episode such as this - unless of course you want such entertainment.

Why Usability Training?

2007-02-27T17:00:00.000-05:00

One thing I discovered - Training is a means to organize your thoughts so the communication is clear.

How I've realized this is because I have this innate ability to recognize and use my instincts, based solely on experience to design whatever it is that needs to be designed, but without all the language. Basically, it's second nature to me and to justify it can sometimes be a task in itself. Artisans don't really need to explain themselves or justify their work unless they're in the selling stages. Since usability has an art and science, on my part at least, the science and the art of communicating that science is more clear, simply by taking a training course on a heavy subject that takes three days to cover.

Now there are words and groups of words that form an explanation of how and why usability works. Knowing the why is half the battle. Explaining it to anyone else other than yourself, in an objective, non-opinionated way is the other half.

So for those who are still apprehensive into taking extra courses, let me just say that if you're not open for this kind of learning and relearning, you really have no business in the usability field. Actually, to take this further, those who think they "know-it-all" will find themselves stuck when all of a sudden they discover they don't and now is in need of additional knowledge or resources, but it is inaccessible because you haven't bothered to take the time to learn more than you already know.

For any kind of success, in business or in life, and in this case, user experience design or however you want to call it, growth is the key.

Take that extra course. It will change your life.

Usability Training

2007-02-26T12:45:00.000-05:00

I'm writing this at MicorTek right now, a common place where companies can use the facilities to train their people. At this instance, I'm in the course for application design held by Human Factors International. even though I have an extended background on many industries, I felt the need to brush-up on some of the principles. Not only that, since the material is quite heavy, it's a great precursor to knowing the material for the Usability Analyst Certification Exam. It's just another one of those "nice to haves" under your belt when you're a professional.

One thing I've already learned today was to bring this kind of information back to our developers so that they get a perspective as to how involved this process can be. Well, HFI has a course for that too, where in just 6 modules, you can be a certified trainer and teach this material to basically anyone. I'm up for that!

Okay, back to class. I've got a week before I head back.

The Impact of Design

2007-02-20T10:31:00.000-05:00

After reading Donald Norman's first chapter of his new book, I realized a couple of things:

What I'm designing right now has no catastrophic consequences if things go wrong for the user or the system;
What I'm designing can be referred to as "low impact" because of the nature of the product (administration). Functionality is more driven than usability at certain times.
The only thing I can affect is the bottom dollar, directly dependent on learnability.

Yes, I think in fundamental ways. I can also tell you that I've designed systems or products where catastrophic failures can occur. When this happens, more and more scenarios go through my head to anticipate every situation imaginable. And from Donald's new chapter, it can only come from the designer's head - that is why having usability analysts are important.

Anticipatory design is what we do. Solve it before it becomes a problem. But then that means automation in certain respects - by autofilling users' previous entries, by autocalculating cruise control speed on a car in approaching traffic. The objective is to meet the users' needs even before they start to complain - like a decent waiter at an exclusive restaurant.

While I won't be saving lives (directly) with what I'm doing (as opposed to developing airplane systems or auto-cruise control on cars), I will be improving some people's attitudes by creating a more pleasant and usable interface. Not that administration work is in itself pleasant, but perhaps then, less evil.

Leadership in User Experience

2007-02-16T14:28:00.000-05:00

It's been on my mind for quite some time, and in fact, I've taken a position that best suit me and the company I work with:

"To be involved with user experience in a company that is in the middle of growth, you must serve everyone."

And for this, I don't mean to cater to everyone's beck and call. I mean to make an actual difference. To empower as well. What I did was to have actual leadership training, or more specifically, Servant Leadership training. It's funny because most people equate being a leader to be someone who "takes command" like in this article. Not so. I can tell you right off the bat, while you do need to have accountability on your plate, you don't have to take full command like that of a dictator. A dictator is not a leader.

In actuality, being a Servant Leader means to listen to people. Being a Servant Leader in the User Experience field means to listen to your users, your development team, your product managers - you get the idea. Not only listen, but also understand and compile the feedback and the data and whatever else research you do in order to come up with the best solution.

Indeed, it does take a lot of energy, time, patience and people-skills, but more importantly, also vision, fortitude, self-accountability, growth, and an ability to change at a moment's notice.

One could also say we are the mediators between the users and the developers. We make the graphical language simple to understand for the users, and our knowledge is enough to understand the complexities from the developers. This knowledge comes from experience and exposure - part of the Law of Gestation. It also comes from taking nothing for granted.

One also might say we're the software private investigators, asking a million questions just for the sake of knowledge and understanding in an unwavering belief in that when the truth is revealed, it will set the software application free. Free from any troubles, reducing support calls and training time, increasing profits so that our share also becomes larger, hopefully. (But I digress.)

So when someone asks you want you do, and you tell them you're in user experience development, what kind of vision are you painting?

If you don't have an answer, you might be in the wrong field.

Let the interface tell the story - Part II

2007-02-08T14:36:00.000-05:00

Well it looks like there's some consensus with letting the interface do the talking. Take a look at this article:

A lack of user-friendly technology in the marketplace is exacerbating a digital divide in the workforce between those who can use technology effectively and those who can't and is likely to provoke a backlash among users, according to a new Technology Predictions for 2007 report from consultancy Deloitte, released today.
Read more...

Hmm..15 days after this article was posted, I write about that fundamental issue in another way. Perhaps that's how long such energy from Europe takes to traverse the Atlantic.

You'll have to read the article to connect the dots.

Fundamental Thinking

2007-02-07T13:56:00.000-05:00

I've been hearing it time and time again and it never seems to escape me - probably because it's my profession that draws out such magmatic words.

"Intuitive. It's needs to be more intuitive!"

Of course, I am referring to interface design. Almost every usability test ponders upon the idea of intuitive design or how much intuitiveness is inherent in the design. But really, how much of this "intuition" do we really use?

I read the article by UIE and it gives a great visual as how much intuition we really use. Based on this article, in fact, we do not use our intuition, but more so upon our knowledge. Take it further and we actually base all our reactions on experiences. Our conscious and cognitive ability is as follows:

1. See the situation (without interpretation);
2. Recall and relate to past experiences (with some interpretation);
3. Base a decision (with full interpretation);
4. Act on the decision.

When this is considered into the Fundamental Thinking Process, can we honestly say then, there is something in the design that needs to be more intuitive? Perhaps in this context, intuitive only means a gathering of our past experiences with applications and programs that we have already used. Which, in this case, provided that we all have the same experiences - most likely not, then to achieve such intuitiveness in our designs is a complete fallacy.

So really, there is no such thing as intuitive design.

Let the Interface tell the story

2007-01-30T10:11:00.000-05:00

One of the most dreaded things being a user of any software application is the training and learning process one has to go through. The company pays for your courses. But if you're an independent, you have to go out there to learn it yourself.

Being and interface designer isn't any different either, especially if you're looking to redesign any interface. From my experience and my opinion, if the documentation or training course has more than 25 pages, the application is probably too complex to learn quickly.

There are many times where I come across a current design ready for revamping, and the interface tells me very little, or rather a lot - too much in fact because at that point, I've already assessed it to being too complex to learn in 30 minutes or less.

Some factors that prevent quick learning:

1. The documentation is the tutorial. They are usually too long and too complex to understand;
2. The interface was designed poorly. This is usually a case of when usability is still in at its infant stage;
3. The application is not focussed. Usually is the case when a set of target users is too broad or inappropriate.

I could go on, but then like some long documentation, I'd lose your interest.

So to solve all this, why not let the interface tell the story? Have the development processes integrate such a way that enables pre-development work. This also includes focusing your target users and developing mental models - a translation between the human being and software system. So that once actually concepts are being developed, the end in mind is always letting the interface tell the user how they want to be operated upon.

Of course, a lot of past experiences would have to be harnessed. This is what we call "intuitive". (That could also be another debate.) At least in this case, documentation is lessened, the training is made easier and simpler to follow. It would definitely make life a lot easier.

Usability Practitioner's Code of Honor

2007-01-25T12:02:00.000-05:00

Every person needs a Code of Honor - that is, rules that govern how a person operates whether in their daily life professionally or not. This is a great way to keep track of how you're operating under certain circumstances. It keeps your behavior "in-check" especially if you're looking to improve or reach some of the goals for the year or lifetime.

I have my Usability Practitioner's Code of Honor. It has also adapted some of the principles from the UPA website I feel need to be addressed or kept in mind as a third-party ruler, thus removing my own opinion about whether something should done in a different way or not.

Here it is in full:

Usability Practitioner’s Personal Code of Honor

• Be on Time – apologize when late;
• Act in the Best Interest of society, your client and employer;
• Be Honest and Kind with everyone;
• Act with Integrity – do what you say. If something cannot be met, arrange for alternative ways for completion;
• Be Responsible to my actions – take ownership;
• Ask for help when I don’t know – I am not suppose to know everything;
• Honor intellectual property rights including copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, contracts, and licenses;
• Respect the privacy of your colleagues and participants;
• Honor promises of confidentiality, and anonymity;
• Strive to increase your competence every day and empower those you work with;
• Encourage others around me – others will return the favor when it’s time;
• Take initiative – find a way, make a way, no obstacle thinking;
• Anchor and celebrate all wins – especially when we reach milestones.

Imparting the user experience knowledge

2007-01-24T08:17:00.000-05:00

Where I'm working now, we've implemented the User Centered Design processes starting a couple of years ago. We're currently a two person team as I have replaced another whom had left just last year. In terms of where we are in UCD maturity, we're on the brink of consistently hitting Stages 4 and 5 especially with some new initiatives. The reality is, we're not at the point of having enough people in our usability team to really expand our activities, yet we also want to make enough of a difference to empower our working colleagues. So how do we do this?

A great way to impart knowledge of what we know and ways to implement the user experience design into current processes is to develop an Intranet. This way, anyone who is in need of our help has access to us, not only in our database of UE knowledge, but also through constant feedback mechanisms.

This is a great way to serve those around you who have little or no exposure to what the UCD/UED discipline really entails. The transition is always constant and always progressive, little by little - not one big gigantic step. People cannot handle that much change all at once.

The key is also to have a plan, a strategy with a timeline of where you want the corporation to be (at what stage) and when.

The Influence of User Experience

2007-01-23T09:28:00.000-05:00

Having six years of experience in the designing of User Experience is actually not saying too much. Is it really six years, or is it one year, six times over? Many professionals view themselves as having so many years of experience in their occupation, they forget to look at the true value they have put out into the corporation or community they are trying to influence.

So in fact, there are probably a lot of "fakers" out there, not knowing really why they're doing what they're doing because their vision has been lost. Then there are others who actually achieve, who really set realistic, attainable goals - goals that make them stretch to the next level. When this happens, there really is a greater level of expectation and the person truly attains a "year of experience". Of course, this goes without saying, there needs to be consistent action.

So when I look at myself in terms of what I have achieved in Usability or User Experience Design, I have a long way to go. The foundation is indeed set. I have enough talent and know-how to take myself to the next level. What I need to do is to keep in the learning mode in everything I do. This kind of approach is much overlooked.

I can tell you that in terms of designing for the best User Experience, the principles have never changed. The practices have gotten better with each year a new application tool is revamped, redeveloped or newly developed. Methods such as Task Analysis, Card Sorting etc. have all been "tried, tested and true" methods into developing a better understanding of the user and what they experience.

I think the best way a usability professional can do to serve their users, aside from all these fancy techniques, is to Listen to their users. We have two ears and one mouth. Let's use them in proportion! Taking some of the principles of Dale Carnegie's book, "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and applying them to everyday activities can give you great returns. For instance, Carnegie says that people love talking about themselves. That's great! And it's all in-line with the usability profession. We listen to user's gripes and concerns, we jot them down, take as many qualitative notes as possible. We listen, listen, listen to no end. It's when there are no issues that really, we should question the quality of the feedback. It's not like we look for problems - we just want to serve those users and help solve user issues.

I think to that end, our influence as usability professionals, and the discipline within User Experience Design can affect more than what we deal with daily. Implementation is improved, support calls are reduced, and all the other basic ROI factors are amended. It's just business sense to empower as many people with this type of basic knowledge, as it takes any corporation farther with a greater competitive advantage.