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.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
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...
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...
Monday, December 1, 2008
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?
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?
Friday, October 31, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, September 5, 2008
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.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
First Impressions of Google Chrome
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.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Anticipatory design done correctly
(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.
(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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
