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.

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!

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.

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

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.