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.

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!

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.

Why Usability Training?

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.

Leadership in User Experience

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.

Fundamental Thinking

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.