Test Driving the Tesla Model S

This review is a slight departure from my usual UX blog entries.  Since the Tesla Model S is in fact a rolling smartphone, I’ll give myself some leniency.  And it will make the petrolhead side of me happy.  Here it goes:

Thinking of giving up the ///M3 for a @TeslaMotors. Am I crazy? #petrolhead
— Big Ben (@benjamin_ho) July 23, 2014

"Thinking of giving up the ///M3 for a @Teslamotors. Am I crazy?"

That was one tweet that started it all because my friend in Canada had just bought one and that led me to question why I was paying $4/gallon for gas.  I was tired of doing so.

@Teslamotors then asked me if I had ever test-driven one.

I haven't, but I did allude to buying my M3 without even driving it.  Does Gran Turismo count?  That's what you do when you're a devoted petrolhead - buy cars when you haven't test-driven them.  I did that with one other car I had for 10 years.

In a matter of minutes, I signed up for a test drive because Tesla was having a northeast tour in different places, letting strangers drive their perfectly engineered cars.  And as fate would have it, they were in Maine this past weekend.  But then a snag - the Kennebunkport event was booked solid.  A customer rep called minutes after I signed up and arranged another time for my test drive in Ogunquit, in the middle of summer.  In the middle of tourist season.  (Do you see what I'm getting at?)  But the people from Tesla were on the ball - so much so, it almost felt like they were stalking me like the NSA.  Actually, they were anticipating my every need because that's what the good experiences are supposed to provide.

With the appointment booked and some excitement and anticipation already building, I had to put my objective mindset on.  I did some background research on YouTube to see what people were saying, and what things to look out for.  All I found were testimonials of how great the car was.  Talk about an insurmountable pile of tree-hugging propaganda!  Okay, it wasn't exactly that, because you wouldn't want to wrap a performance sedan around some timber.  But I digress.

@byhamilton was in for a treat!

I tweeted out asking who wanted to join me in my test drive.  Of course, my good, designer friend @byhamilton raised her hand.  She insists she invited herself.  But I knew she'd wanted to experience it [again], especially with a madman driver behind the wheel.  She said she trusts me behind the wheel.  She was in for a treat.  She didn't know about the hours of Gran Turismo I had played through now, 6 versions of the game, nor the numerous in-real-life track days.  Looking at my resume of cars driven, though not entirely impressive, is more than what an average person might drive:

1985 Toyota Camry

My late uncle's 1989 Toyota Supra

1990 Oldsmobile Delta 88

2001 Ford Mustang V6

2012 Ford Mustang Convertible

1991 Chevrolet S10 Blazer

1995 SAAB 900 SE

Lotus Elise
2001 Subaru Impreza RS

2007 Porsche Cayman S

2002 Ford SVT Focus, 6sp

2013 Ford Focus ST, 6sp

Nissan Altima

Honda Civic SiR

SAAB Turbo X

Infiniti G37S, 6sp

2003 SAAB 9-5, 2.0t

2008 BMW M3, E92 (current)

Who could say no to her?

Driving down to Ogunquit was a breeze.  As I approached the Beachmere Inn, there she was in all her beauty.  She was sexy and sultry, had on the red lipstick and dress to match, posing like Jessica Rabbit.  The Aston Martin and Maserati curves spoke to me, seducing my eyes and dropping my jaw as if I were Wile E. Coyote.  I was hooked.

Brian was awesome!

I was greeted by a very pleasant man named, Brian.  We were early so he offered to show us around the car.  The Telsa was decked-out with all the options.  It was the P85+ version with a carbon fibre spoiler, 21-inch rims, summer performance tires, Brembo brakes, fog lights, panoramic glass roof, leather seats with alcantara headliner.  I didn't get a good look at the back seats but according to @byhamilton, she had plenty of legroom and she's tall.  The trunk was massive.  It had dual compartments - one to keep all your cycling gear, the other to keep your secrets.  It also had roof fittings for a rack.

After the walkaround, it was time to get in.  Brian showed me the touchscreen controls.  It had every setting for everything you could imagine.  It was involved.  It was somewhat complex.  Yes, the information architecture was logical, read well and I didn't need a decoder ring to navigate through it.  A place for everything and everything in its place.  But how would I handle it when I was driving?  I would have to familiarize myself with the interface beforehand, and this test drive wasn't enough.  I'd have to live with it for a few days or months to truly get acclimated.  The BMW I have now with its iDrive system was like that.  It took me more than a year to even begin exploring and operating the standard radio.  Granted, that was more of a motivational block as the engine soundtrack is so intoxicating.

My favorite function

My favorite function for the Model S was operating the motorized glass roof where you manipulated the actual rendering instead of just being relegated to a slider interface button (that immediately became redundant).  That’s the delight of discovery and I’m sure there are plenty of that in the controls.

The startup sequence was pretty simple albeit out of the ordinary.  There's no gear shift lever, but there was a lever on the steering column to set the drive mode.  You do this by pressing the brake pedal and selecting the drive mode.  The screens for the dashboard shows you the car itself in its proper color, so you remember what you were driving and stare at its beauty, ogling the pin-up every time.

 

The dashboard cluster.

Once started, rolling along was super quiet.  Oh. So. Quiet.  Even at speed.  I could actually hear myself think, it was so Zen.  I should try meditating while driving.

"I'm actually afraid of hitting someone because they won't know I'm there," I declared as I began my think-aloud protocol.

I meandered out of the parking lot and Brian assured me that beyond 5 mph, it does make some noise.

"What music do you like to listen to?" asked Brian.

How genius!  Music sets a connection to the driving experience.  Of course he would ask that question.  He was also trying to set my mind at ease.

"Just tell the radio what you want to listen to," he instructed.

"Brian Transeau," I stated after pressing the voice button.  And it immediately went to a track in his Movement in Still Life album.  Apparently, it has Internet radio and is linked to a service similar to Spotify, Pandora, etc.  And it's included.

Getting into the zone.

It only took a few minutes before my timid driving became spirited.  I was seduced.  I got into the zone.  The smooth, twisting, winding roads were beckoning for my rubber.  So I punched it.  Acceleration was so instant (as was braking), it was actually off the charts!

Look at the telemetry! Lots of orange!

  The entire time, I never really pressed the brake pedal and just let the regenerative braking slow down for me.  All I did was feather, sometimes, the accelerator pedal.  With the driving mode in sport, the Model S drove like a slot car.

Interaction effort is high especially when driving.

I didn’t bother navigating the car’s interface at this point because I was much too busy navigating through the trees, trying to avoid them.  The touchscreen interface was built for recall, not recognition.  I don't want to have to think about the interface and drive at the same time, navigating and selecting functions, even if the information architecture was spot-on.  This is why voice control is so important.  I’d rather have prompts for what to say on-screen to control settings so I don’t have to remember everything.  (Here’s some innovation for you, Tesla.  Correct me if I’m wrong.)  That might get me to being the perpetual intermediate user a lot faster.  And well, with a touchscreen, there’s no tactile feel where buttons have some advantage.  Haptic feedback marginally solves the problem.

Big map.

The one saving grace about it was the fact that it was big enough and accessible enough for the passenger beside me to operate.  Brian was a great co-pilot, gesturing and tapping the controls before my eyes.  My attention was purposeful to driving and not crashing.

I could really get into trouble with this car.  The acceleration was addictive.

It's a car with SAAB sensibilities and BMW M3 speed.

It had all the utility of a SAAB 900 (or 9-3) with its large hatchback, four doors, interior space and stability.  Compared to the M3, driving the Tesla felt more direct and sometimes stiffer, pulling lateral G's with more precision.  It performed in a way I wanted it to, almost.  It's not as forgiving in the corners as the M3, but it comes close.  You barely feel any body roll – it will definitely throw your passengers around without warning.  (Or maybe it was my driving.)  The suspension was firm but wasn't jarring.

But what was it missing?  Maybe it was too robotic.  It drove like a video game (but without the reset button).  Maybe it behaved like a Nissan GTR, lacking some soul like others have stated.  But is that a bad thing?  (I’ll have to drive a Nissan GTR to compare.)  Or maybe it was too perfect.  Who could argue with not paying $4 a gallon of premium gas?  You’d save Brinks truckloads of money by driving a Tesla Model S.  But it wasn't perfect.

What it was missing was range.  With a 4-litre, 414 horsepower V8 engine, my M3 actually gets better range than the Model S.  I can go for long distance drives with my M3, and I did.  Just last year, I drove to Monterey, CA for BMWCCA’s Oktoberfest from Maine and back, winning the longest distance award.  It took me four and a half days to get out there.  But I spent a small fortune on gas.

Tesla would argue that their supercharger infrastructure is being put into place and more and more states and cities are getting them.  While that’s progress, the battery technology still isn't up to par with refueling, or in this case, recharging.  And swapping out batteries is still a Band-Aid solution.

Despite its shortcomings, I want one.  It would be great to commute with and perform short range errands and trips with it.  Would I give up my BMW M3 for the Tesla Model S?  I’m on the fence.  Mainly because of the steep price of entry and limited range.  What Tesla has done is package a forward-thinking car in economics, environmental friendliness and utility to appeal to petrolheads like myself with speed and looks, telling me there are alternatives to driving an electric vehicle and you don’t have to be boring doing it.

But at the end of the day, I’ll have to keep Jessica Rabbit waiting.  And I hate making a lady wait.

UX Strategy - Be the Catalyst

My focus, lately, has been on UX Strategy, mainly because we don't have one.  And no one has thought about it.  While I feel we're making some impact in the limited number of projects we're involved in, I also feel it was time we intentionally start institutionalizing UX.  That's not to say we haven't made some strides.  We've grown our team and the company is more aware of the benefits of having UX.  But there's still much work to do.  We've done the many World Usability Days and evangelized the heck out of it along with numerous workshops in the past, but now UX needed to grow up if we're to make any kind of progression.  The problem is, we have to do it from the middle even though we have an executive champion. So how does one start?

It takes guts.
If you feel sometimes you're the lone person having this vision and wanting to see it through, you're not alone.  That's how I'm feeling right now.  It's about establishing a foundation on which to build upon.  And you have to realize that this won't happen instantly - it may take years, or not, depending on how you approach it and the resistance you get along the way.  I tried to find some quick fixes, but it just wouldn't happen that way.  For instance, some say, the best relationships that happen over time are ones that happen the slowest - with progression.  There's a gestation period to everything and while having the vision and fortitude will push you and motivate you along, you still cannot force it.  But that doesn't mean staying where you are.  Be the mover and shaker.  Be the catalyst.

Starting a strategy also means sticking your head out to make a difference.  So beware if you are thin-skinned.  If you approach it all wrong, it will backfire, so you need to keep your actions tempered and controlled.  Make a case for everything you do.  Have specific intent.

Read. Then read more.
That doesn't mean just reading the numerous articles about UX Strategy.  It also means reading business books.  I've been at it for over 10 years and I'm still learning from the best.  Anything from Jim Collins is a great start as this will give you the kind of business mentality you need to make sustainable change.  All the MBA's are doing it, so why not?  And to accompany his series, anything from John C. Maxwell is a great read.  He talks and writes about leadership the way it was meant to be - and that means changing yourself.  If you're to create a UX Strategy, that means you have to create leaders - and that starts with you.  Of course, you cannot forget reading about UX.  Lean UX is a great book for times when you and your colleagues have to adapt to how a project is undertaken.  Also, refresh your reading starting with Alan Cooper's book.  It will change your perspective in subsequent readings when put in the perspective of developing a strategy.  Now there's purpose to reading!  (Not that there wasn't before.)

Consult with your peers and find a mentor (or two).
The best way to learn is to ask those who have done it before.  Granted, your situation may not be the same, but at least you gain insight from talking with your peers.  You can also ask one or two persons to be your mentor so that you keep your thinking based on reality, not just on cloud nine and the Ideal - the things you want to happen.  The people who you reach out to for support will give you the sanity you need when things don't work out the way you expect it.  But that doesn't mean it gives you a license to complain.
 
Build your team.
Growing up meant that we also had to take stock in our own abilities, our strengths and weaknesses, our values, and also develop our code of honor.  That also meant that we had to determine what projects were actually worthwhile to get involved in - but that didn't mean we wouldn't be involved if conditions weren't ideal.  That's naive.  The point is to be on the same page whenever a project comes through our door, and that meant managing ourselves.  Taking stock meant the team got together for several hours to talk about each other in every different light through anecdotes and getting to know each other's personalities.  We took this test.  This gave us a better understanding in each other, inevitably creating a form of trust, a bond that would be difficult to break.  A stronger team will get everyone far.

Get out there - get context.
You can't design in a vacuum.  And the same goes for developing a strategy and institutionalizing UX.  You can't do it from your stall (aka cube).  As a person in UX, our best attribute is listening.  So why not put it to good use?  Part of the plan to developing any strategy is to get context meaning putting ourselves in someone else's shoes.  The best way to get context was to interview those who we are trying to serve.  That meant talking with the various product managers, developers and department heads to get an understanding of what they're up against.  Empathy - remember that word?  A proper ethonographic study would have been ideal, but it wouldn't be the best use of our time (and it would be creepy).  The objective was to gain insight and then create a course of action that would address everyone's concerns.

By talking with your stakeholders, that signals to them that you're actually interested in who they are and what they do!  And you should be, because if you think you're just creating a UX Strategy for yourself, then you're not doing it for the correct reasons.

Conduct workshops.
Who needs workshops?  Some say, it's in the projects that we are involved in that make the difference.  But how would everyone know what we do if we didn't show them to be aware?  The thing is, to everyone who's not in UX, it's all foreign - we're speaking alien.  It's a different language and they don't understand it.  (I know my parents and siblings still don't know what I do!)  While yes, smaller projects would be the smartest way to gain entry through the barrier, it doesn't create instant buy-in.  My thought here is, if you're going to understand UX, you have to do it and go through the process.  A UX workshop in the form of a Bootcamp is the fastest way to get understanding and buy-in.  It teaches everyone what activities you partake in and the reasons why in a very fast, impactful way.  But of course, you still have to sell the idea for everyone to attend the workshop.

Keep the momentum.
You can't just do something one month and then just disappear.  Have some sort activity every month or two to get into everyone's minds.  That's the only way to build momentum.  Whether it's a workshop, meeting or some sort of fun activity, do something to stay in people's minds.


All in all, I thought a lot about whether we were really ready for this.  I was told I was forcing it but I knew I wasn't.  Sometimes, you just have to do it.  With the ever-changing technologies and its fast pace, and our ever-evolving products, if we didn't do something to continue on our course, to facilitate maturity, I just know we'd lose many other opportunities in the future.  And a big part of that is to get UX ahead of the curve, the instant ideas start to become projects.

Above all else, you have to be the catalyst.  You have to make your own assessment.  Mind you, there's no one easy or correct way to do this.  Even this blog entry isn't the end-all.  When you embark on this journey, it will test you in many ways you never thought it would.  And it all starts with you.

What's eating Windows 8

It's been over a year since the release of Windows 8, and with articles like this, one must ask, "What's eating Windows 8?"

It's actually eating itself.


If Windows 8 is reverting back to have the Start menu button, it sounds more like Microsoft is scrambling and doesn't really know how to handle the low adoption rate.  It's reactionary.  And because of the low response,  Microsoft is no longer confident in their design - since they haven't really committed to the Metro/Modern UI style despite producing hardware along with its new OS.

It's indicative of their Desktop tile, something I noticed right away when I was in awe of the tile beauty.  "Pretty squares," I call it.  When you have such a dichotomy in design, it tells your user that "we haven't really progressed, and this is an experiment [much like Vista] but please, we hope you like this [half-assed design attempt]", to put it bluntly.  It's like a dual-boot version of Windows in order to create embraceable change, but instead, you have two homes.  Or it's a new girlfriend giving you mixed messages.  But I digress.

To put it into context, I've owned the MS Surface tablet Pro (64GB) for almost a year now, and still, many of my friends who don't work in technology haven't seen the device before.  And there are some who work in tech who have never seen the tablet in real life.  People's first reaction is always, "Weird!"  But it stops there and they don't ask to use it for fear it might give them a disease.

The problem with the Surface is that there were so few apps, and the market is still very small.  I was looking to find use for this device for the past year and haven't really done so until I finally upgraded to MS Office 2013 and using Skydrive.  This means instead of using EverNote to take notes during meetings, I can finally use MS Word, save it to SkyDrive and then access is at my desktop or anywhere in the world (like I travel all that much).  And the keyboard serves it purpose, finally.

But in doing so, I'm running the Desktop version of Windows 8, not the Metro version.  And then they try to repeat this design paradigm in MS Word's File menu to create more confusion.  Let me just say, the experience is jarring and I don't like it.  So it's back to using EverNote for me!  At least I know the experience will be the consistent through and through.

The only advantage I see to carrying around the MS Surface tablet is when I am working at home because I don't want to carry my larger, heavier Dell laptop in a second bag.  And when my laptop fails, I use it to access my emails and reply to them using a semi-proper keyboard.  That's about it.  Beyond that and note-taking, or using it as a Skype device because all my other devices are being used for other purposes, the Surface tablet is left to being the backup.

Microsoft is still not clear on the purpose of Windows 8 and the Metro design.  They haven't thought this through.  When you hang on to the past (of the older Desktop), you don't let the present (Metro) shine.  They shouldn't exist together.

And that's as clear as that gets.

Design changes Behavior

I recently bought a BMW E92 M3 where every bit of user experience is 1000-times better than what I was driving before - a Ford.  It was a great departure from what I was used to.  Everything on the Ford was manual, including the transmission.  There were dials and knobs to tend to controlling the climate, navigation was a Tom-Tom, and switching the lights on were intentional as well as switching on the windshield wipers.

On the BMW, the climate control was automatic (but only when you press the "Auto" button, which I actually keep in manual to keep some semblance of control,) navigation was voice activated (or done through iDrive), telephone can be voice activated, mirrors dim automagically at night, wipers are rain-sensing, car audio volume increases with the speed to compensate for road and wind noise, and the list goes on.

Everything about the BMW was meant to anticipate the user's needs.  And I have two distinct features to talk about here that actually warrants discussion in that it changes the driver's behavior.

The first is the seatbelt "butler".  Since the M3 is a coupe, that meant the seatbelts were located way far back by the B-pillar.  The only way to reach it is to stretch like Inspector Gadget, saying the magic words, "Go-go gadget arms!"  But instead of doing that, the BMW has mechanical arms to hand you the seatbelt so you don't have to reach for them.  But of course, this service has a time expiration.  Because if you don't grab it for about 10 to 20 seconds, the arms retracts back into its hole thus releasing the seatbelt and you have to perform some gymnastics to retrieve it.  Because of this time expiration, instead of tending to the radio to put on tunes for my drive, I have to tend to safety first.  This time event expiration has modified my behavior in essence.  Not too drastic as missiles won't fire if I don't reach for it in time, but my muscles get nicely stretched.

The second feature relates to everyone on the road wondering why the heck do BMW drivers cut people off so often?  Well, non-BMW drivers will now have the answer here.  The lane-changing indicator lever is one where you just push either up or down to activate the blinker for right or left movement (respectively).  When the BMW driver pushes on the lever, the indicators blink three times before it gets canceled.  That means the driver has three seconds to change lanes.  That also means in three seconds, if you're the other driver observing the behavior of the BMW driver changing lanes abruptly, it actually isn't their fault.  It's the design of the blinkers that is dictating the behavior of the BMW driver!

Granted, there are arguments in that the BMW driver could just persistently push the lever and give themselves enough time to make the lane-change, but being in such a nice, plush cockpit where the car does almost everything for you, why bother?  Yes, there is a setting in the iDrive where you can deactivate the three-second blinking and keep it manual, but what fun is that?  Why make me think?

But is that enough motivation to endanger the safety of others?  One might also argue that some BMW drivers probably don't have an IT degree to operate the iDrive and hence cannot be responsible for their non-action to get rid of this three-second blinker.  And what does the BMW driver know?  The design is dictating the user behavior without them knowing about it.

So if you ever think your design decisions have no impact on the user, think again.  Those who are behind the scenes designing products need an utmost ethical stance and responsibility for their actions and decisions.  Without this stance and knowing the consequences of these decisions, whether intended or not, chaos will appear.  Apparently, for those non-BMW drivers, it may already have.

Just Flip it.

I recently bought the latest of Android smartphones, the Samsung Galaxy S 3, in all of its pristine marble white.  The device itself is larger than the Captivate I had before, and its touch as well as its larger screen size, make it feel like a mini tablet.

One of the new widget apps already installed was Flipboard.  Having never seen it before, I explored its workings with its simple "flip" interaction as it goes from story to story.  I've read more articles in a matter of an hour for breakfast than I have in a long time.  It was a direct replacement to my daily CBS Morning Show.

I then begin to wonder, why is it that I'm more apt to consumer news on my mobile device than I am on my laptop?  While the tabl...err smartphone was smaller, it had what laptop didn't - transitions.  It's the transitions from story to story, page to page that engaged me more than anything else.  Flipboard is proof that any application can be built by using simple transitions to enhance what its suppose to be doing - in this case, display an aggregate of current news.

I've also been a regular user of Pulse, a more customizable aggregator of online publications.  But I find Flipboard to be more engaging, even though the Pulse is more personal.

So, what am I trying to say here?  I'm not sure that I really have anything to say other than the fact that as of now, I'm considering more and more to get an actual tablet to facilitate my daily Interweb consumption.

Yes, I can be a late adopter.

Remove Yourself from the Equation.

It's happening again.  The conversations sometimes feel like background noise, but each and every sentence said is very important to deciding which way we go in terms of design direction.  Or is it?  Drawing is great.  Discussing is as good.  Making the discussions meaningful is best.  So how do you do that?

I'm going to let you in on a little secret on my unique ability.

We do this many times.  Whether it's discussing the results of a usability testing session, or trying to determine what style or pattern to use in our user interface, I find that there is something missing.  I sit there and stay quiet.  I let others talk and concentrate on the problem and get to the root.  I reflect back in what seems like a lifetime, but in fact is milliseconds, to all the years of knowledge of past usability testing sessions, the type of feedback we received and the design decisions that were made as a result.  This is what I do during heated discussions - when my colleagues try to figure out the ins and outs of the results, what was said or even how the user behaved, etc., etc., etc...

This is when I remove myself from the equation.

Why do I do this?  Sometimes I'm my own worst enemy.  I get too attached to the outcome so I feel the need to argue or justify or persuade.  What most people don't get is that great analysis comes from looking at all perspectives and not being attached to anything.  Only then, after the work in your mind has been done, should you come out with something that changes other people's minds.

What happens is that most people look at the surface - what color to use on the user interface.  Others look just under the surface - how does the user interface behave, or what is its immediate impact.  What I do is look at all those layers, including the Why's, and beyond - through my own collected experience of UX itself.  Those experiences are a part of me but they're also external to me.  What I learn from it is the treasure, not the outcome itself.

I think many of us as UX practitioners is forgetting the full breadth of knowledge and perspective we've accumulated over the years.  And I think we've forgotten it because we're just too busy defending our design decisions or discussing something we think is profound but turns out to be something superficial.  And many times, we take it too personally.

Some people think monkeys can do this.  "Just train him and all things will go well."

No.

While indeed, having a starting a point is good, having someone with experience is even better.  And the objective is to gain that experience from the time you're committing yourself to the practice.  And it requires a lifetime to do so.  It requires design knowledge, not just the practicalities of usability testing.  That of course, is another topic.

Analyze well!

Reinvigorating this blogspace

Hi there.

In the next few months, I will be reinvigorating this blogspace since there have been several developments in the UX world and the lessons learned in my profession.  I'll be talking about ubiquitous computing and doing a book review I haven't posted in a long time.  I will also be talking about a game I dearly love, Gran Turismo 5, which had finally been released late last year.  Among the subjects, the ever blurry role of the analyst turned generalist and pseudo-designer and the challenges facing this time, design epiphanies, and finally, the refocusing of our very own Maine IxDA chapter.  I will probably do the last first, since it's extremely important, necessary and timely.

See you soon!

UX Book Club - Sketching User Experiences by Bill Buxton

Last month we had our first UX Book Club meeting. Apparently, as I'm told, it was the first ever professional book club meeting in Maine. Really? - I thought.

After having read the book and listened to other people's thoughts about the book, it actually improved the experience of the book itself. It wasn't just me reflecting (in my head) upon what was written, and that was a fresh change. Now I'm finding that the book and the thoughts by everyone else who had attended the meeting, is starting to reform my thinking, burning new neural paths and creating new behaviors. In that respect, the UX Book Club did the job as much as the book itself.

And now, after having seen Bill Buxton in a great video at MIX'10, I understand him more and where he comes from, beginning to model how he thinks.

One of the biggest takeaways from the book (hence Bill) is the fact that:

"Design is a compromise."

I had known that for quite some time but really couldn't articulate that feeling about what Design was about in that aspect, until now. It also occurred to me that "design not being a compromise" might have been the old artisan-based way of thinking. There is no longer the genius designer that we used to think existed and much of that came from Industrial Design even though I'm certain some people don't want to admit it.

So where does this leave the UX professional? Since design is a compromise because the designer is working with all different kinds of people in different disciplines (from marketing, to engineering to sales, etc.) it requires someone who is especially empathetic to not just the users/humans using the product/application/building but also to people he is working with.

I'd like to continue on with the discussion we had from the book club. But for now, I'm going to send you to the Maine IxDA thread where there's a list of topics covered in the book.

Design Decisions by the Percentages

I've learned a long time ago in hockey about the concept of "playing the percentages". What this means is that a certain action or play will have a particular success factor over others given the situation. For instance, in a power play when a team is shorthanded one person, one of the best (high percentage) ways to get the puck into the neutral zone and out of your zone is to shoot it off the boards or the glass. The only risk here is having an unpredictable bounce off the glass and the puck stays in the zone. The alternative is to shoot it out in the center through a gap and risk the puck staying in the zone with the opponent quickly covering any gap. One last alternative is to actually carry the puck out of the zone in risk of shorthanding your defense further if the puck-carrier makes a mistake.

So how does this apply to the field of UX?

Well, if a certain play has a specific percentage of success, something that can be measured, it can also be applied to making design decisions - could it not?

The reason why I'm exploring this concept is because we're currently developing a U.I. Pattern Library. (Here's a case study.) And because we're rapidly developing these patterns, there will be some that need to be used immediately and thus cannot be tested right away. So we need to explore all options for a solution to a pattern. There are indeed some patterns that are "straightforward" but then there are those requiring a little more work. And with this work, we need to figure out the best solution. How better to do this than by design by the percentages?

The fact is, most UX designers and analysts have basic knowledge to design based on past data and experiences. (e.g. We know when to use radio buttons instead of checkboxes.) The caveat is that an untested pattern may be completely wrong, especially if after testing, we find out the user behavior and expectations are mismatched. By designing by percentages, we mitigate enough of the unpredictable and also keep cognoscente of our decisions and how they came to be. (This also means that there needs to be documentation that will log these decisions.)

So how can this be used immediately? To me, it's more of a concept I keep in the back of my mind. I think of alternatives and go through a cognitive walkthrough to anticipate what the user may interpret and thus behave when interfacing with the product. However, doing just that may not be as rigorous as some might like. To make is rigorous and more apparent, documentation can accompany each decision made along with alternatives and why they were not chosen. While it can take long to do, at least when the patterns are tested afterwards, the assumptions can be referenced and validated/invalidated.

In the end, this concept is not 100% correct though it does give you progress because you're spending time worthy on exploring the pattern probabilities. To adopt Bill Buxton's axiom that you can only design the framework and not the user behavior, design by percentages can at least get you one step closer to designing an effective framework that gets you eventually closer to influence user behavior.

Video game review - Need for Speed Shift for PS3

I've rarely written about video games. Usually, I just like to play them, experience them and just enjoy it. However, there's this one game I recently bought that haven't met my expectations, and I'm ready to return it to the store. Electronic Arts just released Need for Speed: Shift. It was a big deal in the E3 gamers expo with better graphics and supposed better gameplay. It was suppose to match the caliber of Gran Turismo 5, GRID and Dirt. Let me just say - it doesn't. NFS:Shift follows the formula that the Gran Turismo series uses. Beautiful graphics and theatrics in the beginning so that the petrolheads of the world can salivate over, awesome music and even more awesome exotic, high-performance cars. NFS:Shift even has features to modify your vehicle so you can go with any kind of paint scheme you want and upgrade your car to perform better. Sound familiar?

Where NFS:Shift fails is in several areas:

1. From the start when the game is trying to determine the level of play and control settings, you are sent through a trial by driving a car on a course. If you do well, they may increase your level by reducing the number of computer nannies controlling your car and set the artificial intelligence engine to a higher level. If you do poorly, the game piles on the computer controls to a point where you don't actually drive your car anymore. Guess how I did? And this was very disconcerting because I had played driving games since Gran Turismo 2 (GT2).

For a good 15 to 30 minutes I was looking for the settings to change the level of play and rid myself of most of the computer nannies. As for the cause of this poor performance? The controller settings forced me to use a specific set of buttons for certain controls instead those I was acclimated to on Gran Turismo. Perhaps this is their way of forcing gamers to buy the overpriced steering wheel control that has a flimsy ergonomic infrastructure to support it. (Yes, I know I'm not being nice.)

2. EA put what's called, "EA Messenger" in a horrible place where it can be easily pressed by accident and pause the game. This feature is activated by the same mechanism as the accelerator (the right thumbstick) by pressing on it (R3). Unfortunately, because of this new paradigm forced upon me on the controller settings, I've actually crashed my car because of where this function is located. Obviously, there wasn't enough usability research done to foresee such an instance. 3. Loading the game is an extremely boring process. I've counted that I had to press the "O" button ("X" on NA consoles since, mine is a Japan console) 5 times to load the game all the while watching different progress bars do their thing.

Why couldn't these processes be done automatically and without my knowing? Wow me with your car graphics and not your system messages.

All in all, I really wanted to love this game, I really did. Driving the new cars make this game addictive - but each and every time, it also makes me wince because of the lack of respect of these three crucial things in the user experience. Back to GT5 for me.

Here are my recommendations for racing games for the Playstation console, best user experience listed first:
1. GRID
2. GT5 Prologue
3. GT4
4. GT3
5. Colin McRae 2
6. Colin McRae 1
7. WRC
8. DiRT
9. Ridge Racer 5
Dead last perhaps umpteenth million NFS:Shift

Learn from Polyphony

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

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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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.