The often quoted 'Useful, Usable, Desirable' mantra is not new but is still a powerful truth to design products by. There are many facets that make a good customer experience good, but aiming for these three will almost always get you close. All too frequently, I'm confronted by products that didn't do it right.
After running into the latest one today, I thought about what an increasing risk it is for companies to not try to incorporate all three into what they are selling. While a few companies these days let things out the door only hitting one of the marks, many more try harder but still seem like Meatloaf must have been part of their decision-making process. Enabling two out of the three may seem like a worthwhile effort, but it's becoming more and more risky, and it's pretty easy to see why. This simple set of combinations shows what I mean:
Useful +Usable +Desirable = The People you're after will probably want it, use it, and love it.
-Useful +Usable +Desirable = People might try it and will probably find it easy to use, but (risk) they get distracted or bored, forget about it quickly, and move on to something else. Lots of shallow games and social apps fall into this area.
Useful -Usable +Desirable = People are drawn to the intent because they see it filling a need, even to the point that they are willing to be somewhat frustrated when using it. But (risk) as soon as a competitor helps them do this more easily, they'll be gone.
Useful +Usable -Desirable = People get a need met in an easy to use fashion, but engagement is low and no real emotional connection is made. (risk) When a competitor makes this enjoyable, people will switch easily.
So where does the experience your products provide land? Are you busy selling, or busy explaining why people should look beyond shortcomings? Do people want, use, and love what you make? Take a hard look now, because this might be your only chance to do something before someone else does.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Melancholia and Music That Leaves Marks (1303)
I am a melancholic. I came to grips with it years ago, and my wife sort of mostly has, as well. I'm not sure my children, though they're teens, fully realize it, but I suppose they will sooner or later. Fortunately I have plenty of parts of life that balance this out, too, so getting too far down in the hole hasn't been a problem in a long time.
Recently on NPR I heard an interview with Emmylou Harris and Rodney Crowell. Crowell talked about "engag(ing) melancholy as if it were a kind of revelry." I can very much relate to that. Melancholy for me is often a rich and textured feeling that brings on a sense of life that few other emotions match.
My taste in art, especially music, certainly reflects this trait. Moody, cinematic songs that explore the unintended fate-changing twists and turns of life, so often accompanied by regret, sadness, mystery, and pain, are the ones that draw me in, the ones that leave marks on me and my heart.
A while back I shared a particularly meaningful cut, and tonight I wanted to post another. This one was written by someone not old enough to have built up what he sings of, yet somehow he manages to capture the essence of how 40, 60, or 80 years of life can haunt us.
"I could use another twenty years to fix the last fifteen, but it never seems to work to my advantage."
Here's to a richness in life, even if it's weary and worn.
Recently on NPR I heard an interview with Emmylou Harris and Rodney Crowell. Crowell talked about "engag(ing) melancholy as if it were a kind of revelry." I can very much relate to that. Melancholy for me is often a rich and textured feeling that brings on a sense of life that few other emotions match.
My taste in art, especially music, certainly reflects this trait. Moody, cinematic songs that explore the unintended fate-changing twists and turns of life, so often accompanied by regret, sadness, mystery, and pain, are the ones that draw me in, the ones that leave marks on me and my heart.
A while back I shared a particularly meaningful cut, and tonight I wanted to post another. This one was written by someone not old enough to have built up what he sings of, yet somehow he manages to capture the essence of how 40, 60, or 80 years of life can haunt us.
"I could use another twenty years to fix the last fifteen, but it never seems to work to my advantage."
Here's to a richness in life, even if it's weary and worn.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
How To Know You Need Time Management Help
I mostly hate this topic. Really. I just feel like somehow I should be able to fit everything in whenever and however. But this past December, after a crazy year moving halfway across the country and getting used to a new and very different role at work, I had achieved a high degree of mismanagement of tasks and email at work. I hated that even more. I knew I needed to make some changes, and so I did. Two months later I've settled into a groove. I'm at work inbox <5, tasks are disappearing off my list, and projects show clear progress toward deliverables.
In thinking about getting this far and the steps I took to achieve this, it struck me that maybe it might be more interesting to put together a list of reasons I knew it needed to happen. Who needs another 'this is how you do it' list? So, in the spirit of admitting you have a problem, here are seven ways you can tell that you need to make some time management changes.
1) You can't remember the last time you said 'no' to something that was important to someone else.
2) Your mobile loses charge from email updates, not texts or calls.
3) You have hours and hours of articles, videos, or podcasts that 'you'll get to.'
4) Each week, hours seem to disappear without evidence that anything productive happened during them.
5) Co-workers bypass email to get you in person for trivial matters.
6) You say more than once a month that all the meetings you attend are what keeps you from getting things done.
7) You are convinced that checking email more often will enable you to catch up.
Bonus) When you look at Facebook or Twitter, you can actually remember what was in the feed last time you looked.
There probably are more, but those seem to cover what I, and people I know, have shown as symptoms.
If any of those ring true for you, take action now. Trust me that you'll soon feel less stressed and more accomplished. As to how, there are many techniques and practices that work for people. Ask around to people you work with who you know are effective with their time. Or adopt one of the popular techniques. Or go eclectic like I did and build your own method. The goal is the important thing, the exact path less so.
Good luck!
In thinking about getting this far and the steps I took to achieve this, it struck me that maybe it might be more interesting to put together a list of reasons I knew it needed to happen. Who needs another 'this is how you do it' list? So, in the spirit of admitting you have a problem, here are seven ways you can tell that you need to make some time management changes.
1) You can't remember the last time you said 'no' to something that was important to someone else.
2) Your mobile loses charge from email updates, not texts or calls.
3) You have hours and hours of articles, videos, or podcasts that 'you'll get to.'
4) Each week, hours seem to disappear without evidence that anything productive happened during them.
5) Co-workers bypass email to get you in person for trivial matters.
6) You say more than once a month that all the meetings you attend are what keeps you from getting things done.
7) You are convinced that checking email more often will enable you to catch up.
Bonus) When you look at Facebook or Twitter, you can actually remember what was in the feed last time you looked.
There probably are more, but those seem to cover what I, and people I know, have shown as symptoms.
If any of those ring true for you, take action now. Trust me that you'll soon feel less stressed and more accomplished. As to how, there are many techniques and practices that work for people. Ask around to people you work with who you know are effective with their time. Or adopt one of the popular techniques. Or go eclectic like I did and build your own method. The goal is the important thing, the exact path less so.
Good luck!
Monday, March 11, 2013
A Story Tells Itself
Those who know me well in the design world know that I generally despise Top 10 lists or other magic recipe approaches to just about anything, especially good design. But sometimes lists can be good (almost everything has its place).
Emma Coates from Pixar tweeted some really great principles and questions about storytelling that the folks over at Aerogramme Writer's Studio collected into a nice little list. Not all of these are originally from Pixar, but they are all terrific to keep in mind for story.
The reason I'm posting them though is that many are universally good for creative endeavors of all sorts. My two primary creative exercises are design and music, and yet many of these "rules" resonate with me. In particular, I've grown very fond of espousing 11 and 12, especially when you want to get somewhere that is unique or innovative.
But really, often, most anything that we create involves story, so this post is not just about extracting what seems to apply. When someone hears a song, views a painting, or interacts with a digital application, there's a narrative, a happening or doing that is unfolding. The stories our creation will take part in can help inform, guide, and clarify what we are doing. So view this list as helpful when making anything that people interact with. If these strike a chord for you, print them out and refer to them often during your creative efforts.
Squirrel!
Emma Coates from Pixar tweeted some really great principles and questions about storytelling that the folks over at Aerogramme Writer's Studio collected into a nice little list. Not all of these are originally from Pixar, but they are all terrific to keep in mind for story.
The reason I'm posting them though is that many are universally good for creative endeavors of all sorts. My two primary creative exercises are design and music, and yet many of these "rules" resonate with me. In particular, I've grown very fond of espousing 11 and 12, especially when you want to get somewhere that is unique or innovative.
But really, often, most anything that we create involves story, so this post is not just about extracting what seems to apply. When someone hears a song, views a painting, or interacts with a digital application, there's a narrative, a happening or doing that is unfolding. The stories our creation will take part in can help inform, guide, and clarify what we are doing. So view this list as helpful when making anything that people interact with. If these strike a chord for you, print them out and refer to them often during your creative efforts.
Squirrel!
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Two Ideas for IxDA's Interaction14
At a few different points during Interaction13, I felt that designerly feeling that something could be done better. Now, sometimes when I have that feeling, it's only about preference, or mood, or some other temporal issue. But I pay a little attention and see where the feeling takes my thoughts and if they go somewhere productive, then I pay a lot of attention.
One of the times was an easy target, and one that others saw improvement possibilities for, as well. So, while I love the idea behind The Great UX Debate, the execution leaves much to be desired. First and foremost, it's lacking actual debate. Debate needs to involve opposing positions, strong argument, and even judgment about who wins and loses. What happened in The Great UX Debate of 2013 was more like a really boring salon in which only a few people who didn't really disagree got to talk and the rest of us politely pretended to listen. Snore. We should do better.
To that point, my first idea is easy: Have a real debate! Or even series of them. We have plenty of controversial material: changing behavior, influencing for revenue or choice, to Adobe or not to Adobe, etc. And we certainly have opinionated people to spare. So, give them time, space, rules, judges, and topics. In fact, on the last night of Interaction13, some of us did just that. In a little dive bar on King, we did a topic brainstorm, picked sides and judges, and let it rip on whether designers should know how to code, among other resolutions. And, to underscore this point even more, someone in New York had a similar idea and started the Designers Debate Club! (They need to drop the apostrophe, so I did)
We can do this! Let's have truly Great UX Debates in Amsterdam!
By the way, I really want to go to Amsterdam!
The other idea sprang not so much from a misguided use of a concept, but more the unease I felt watching talks that were not what they could have been. I mean this in a couple of ways. 1) Some topics felt small and shallow by themselves because they were about aspects of things, not the things themselves. 2) Similarly, other talks seemed incomplete; about a part of a whole, not the whole. Yet several times these talks came in loosely associated clumps. They were on the same track or even back-to-back, though clearly not directly tied together in any purposeful sense.
So the idea flashed through. What if conference organizers detected those binding elements earlier before the conference for a couple of hands-ful of potential speakers and had them work together? Imagine getting three people with mildly interesting insights that would make an okay 10 minute presentation to work together to more deeply and broadly address an important area resulting in a killer 30 or 45 minute session? To me, the value for the audience and the speakers would be exponentially better. Harder to pull off? Sure. Much bigger payoff? Absolutely! And a great result is much more certain. Aren't we pushing collaborative design for just such reasons? Multiple perspectives brought together for a solution subjected to iterative improvement raises the possibility of success every time.
So there you go. I offer these because the past several years have brought constant wishes for doing conferences a different way. I want to be more excited and fulfilled by conferences. I want Interaction to be a continuously trailblazing conference. We know that we should be leading the exploration. Yes, a mixture of in-depth and lightning sessions is interesting, but we can go further. I offer these because we should be better.
Let's do it!
One of the times was an easy target, and one that others saw improvement possibilities for, as well. So, while I love the idea behind The Great UX Debate, the execution leaves much to be desired. First and foremost, it's lacking actual debate. Debate needs to involve opposing positions, strong argument, and even judgment about who wins and loses. What happened in The Great UX Debate of 2013 was more like a really boring salon in which only a few people who didn't really disagree got to talk and the rest of us politely pretended to listen. Snore. We should do better.
To that point, my first idea is easy: Have a real debate! Or even series of them. We have plenty of controversial material: changing behavior, influencing for revenue or choice, to Adobe or not to Adobe, etc. And we certainly have opinionated people to spare. So, give them time, space, rules, judges, and topics. In fact, on the last night of Interaction13, some of us did just that. In a little dive bar on King, we did a topic brainstorm, picked sides and judges, and let it rip on whether designers should know how to code, among other resolutions. And, to underscore this point even more, someone in New York had a similar idea and started the Designers Debate Club! (They need to drop the apostrophe, so I did)
We can do this! Let's have truly Great UX Debates in Amsterdam!
By the way, I really want to go to Amsterdam!
The other idea sprang not so much from a misguided use of a concept, but more the unease I felt watching talks that were not what they could have been. I mean this in a couple of ways. 1) Some topics felt small and shallow by themselves because they were about aspects of things, not the things themselves. 2) Similarly, other talks seemed incomplete; about a part of a whole, not the whole. Yet several times these talks came in loosely associated clumps. They were on the same track or even back-to-back, though clearly not directly tied together in any purposeful sense.
So the idea flashed through. What if conference organizers detected those binding elements earlier before the conference for a couple of hands-ful of potential speakers and had them work together? Imagine getting three people with mildly interesting insights that would make an okay 10 minute presentation to work together to more deeply and broadly address an important area resulting in a killer 30 or 45 minute session? To me, the value for the audience and the speakers would be exponentially better. Harder to pull off? Sure. Much bigger payoff? Absolutely! And a great result is much more certain. Aren't we pushing collaborative design for just such reasons? Multiple perspectives brought together for a solution subjected to iterative improvement raises the possibility of success every time.
So there you go. I offer these because the past several years have brought constant wishes for doing conferences a different way. I want to be more excited and fulfilled by conferences. I want Interaction to be a continuously trailblazing conference. We know that we should be leading the exploration. Yes, a mixture of in-depth and lightning sessions is interesting, but we can go further. I offer these because we should be better.
Let's do it!
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Short Thoughts on Interaction13
Had the privilege of attending Interaction13 in Toronto at the end of January. I love the IxDA and so I really enjoy getting to make it to the annual conference. And in general I love Canada, too, so it was fun to be back to both after a long while gone.
Of course I saw a number of design friends and made some new ones. I enjoyed some great food (poutine!) and had a truly wonderful Manhattan at the Cocktail Bar. Besides connecting and enjoyment, however, I was there to learn. So here are some brief snippets that stuck, in no particular order.
Designing for the world around us means more than just the next digital interaction. Design for interactions between people and for people. Sometimes use digital technology.
Lean UX Design is here and needs to be examined closely to see how it might benefit your practice in part or whole.
We can always get closer to the people we design for.
We should also probably get closer to the making of what we design, whether that's code, fabric, etc.
There are so many of us now. And still not enough. Training and mentoring are still big needs!
Interaction designers are in a great position conceptually to influence business and organizational thinking. Step into the fray. Know what you're talking about, and get ready to take some shots, but get in there. The world needs our perspective.
The Torontonian design outfit Normative rocks. "Strategy is an integrated set of choices that results in a unique position with lasting advantages." Intent planning is a favorite new strategy framework.
Strategy as Integration: Snowmobile = An outboard motor driving a tank on skis steered by a bike.
A good workshop should make you feel humble and empowered at the same time.
There are elements of being human we should think about more. Rhythm, flow, tension, inattention. They are already part of interaction, but we haven't been using them consciously much.
Data visualization is a huge interaction design opportunity (and yes, a huge opportunity for so much else, too). But we're still very focused on the amount of continuous information and the coolness of the visuals. We need to see how people can really use this and design for meaning. Analysis done by statisticians result in actuarials. We need synthesis over probability-based classification.
Education is another area that is in desperate need of interaction design thinking. As a society, we have mistaken review and regurgitation for education. It's time for engagement. 6 hat and 6 boxes can help.
Sound design is beginning to be recognized for its importance in interaction. Finally.
The interaction design students in the competition are doing amazing work in really interesting areas. We have more awesomeness ahead of us.
'Designing to maximize positive capability' is a powerful idea. Much better than 'behavior change'.
Happy to see more mention of system design and concepts. This is a really important skills growth area for us. Donella Meadows - "Leverage Points".
The Designing Everything but the Food talk showed a powerful example of rhythm and flow being used well in interaction & design. One idea from it was that phrasing goals as "how might we...?" is a great way to approach collaborative design.
I'll close this with the idea that increasing and tightening authentic human connections through social interactions could be one of the great achievements of our young field. Albert Shum (a fellow Microsoft employee) told us that connecting to make us all better is what we should strive for. I agree.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
I have a problem
I have a problem. It's not been unknown, but I'm forcing myself to put it into clear and simple words.
I am addicted to busywork and distraction.
It is easier for me to think about what little thing to do next or look for one more interesting article posted on twitter than it is for me to do meaningful work.
Easier to read the news than read that design theory book.
Easier to read about religious debate than to mediate on truths.
Easier to check statuses than to write that heartfelt email.
Easier to read inspiring stories about someone else's social work instead of being part of a solution.
Easier to think about what should be done instead of doing it.
I have plenty I say I want to do. But the truth is I don't do much of it. I don't like this about myself and I want to change.
This not to say there are no meaningful priorities that I work on. Relationships with my wife, daughters, and son get a lot of attention. And over the past couple of months I've renewed and even improved my guitar practice. But the truth remains that I am not getting other important things done because of my bad habits.
Why do they exist? Does it matter? It probably does matter in that I can use the knowledge in the future to help my family or colleagues. But I'm not sure it matters right this instant. What I think I need right now is acknowledgement and reflection that will deepen my revulsion for this idolatry and laziness and lead me to resolve to change.
And yes, I am aware that resolve is typically not enough. I know of tools and techniques to help me change and will use them. In time. Soon.
But right now I am staring my problem in the face and I want it to know that it sickens me. Habits that were never consciously started can be the hardest to end. But it is time to end this.
I am addicted to busywork and distraction.
It is easier for me to think about what little thing to do next or look for one more interesting article posted on twitter than it is for me to do meaningful work.
Easier to read the news than read that design theory book.
Easier to read about religious debate than to mediate on truths.
Easier to check statuses than to write that heartfelt email.
Easier to read inspiring stories about someone else's social work instead of being part of a solution.
Easier to think about what should be done instead of doing it.
I have plenty I say I want to do. But the truth is I don't do much of it. I don't like this about myself and I want to change.
This not to say there are no meaningful priorities that I work on. Relationships with my wife, daughters, and son get a lot of attention. And over the past couple of months I've renewed and even improved my guitar practice. But the truth remains that I am not getting other important things done because of my bad habits.
Why do they exist? Does it matter? It probably does matter in that I can use the knowledge in the future to help my family or colleagues. But I'm not sure it matters right this instant. What I think I need right now is acknowledgement and reflection that will deepen my revulsion for this idolatry and laziness and lead me to resolve to change.
And yes, I am aware that resolve is typically not enough. I know of tools and techniques to help me change and will use them. In time. Soon.
But right now I am staring my problem in the face and I want it to know that it sickens me. Habits that were never consciously started can be the hardest to end. But it is time to end this.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Good Design: Artful but not Art
Art seeks to
create beauty-truth that others find valuable for in its provocation and impact.
Design seeks to create value-truth that others find beautiful in its effective utility.
The act of design aims to find the best fit between identified problems and possible solutions within understood contexts. Inside that frame, design should be artful in its completeness and detail. But true art -- purely creative and beholden to no one -- may be almost never appropriate, possible, or even desirable. Even what seems like a truly new, artistic, solution by necessity must and will be broken down into visual and interactive concepts that match to the human capabilities present in the context of the solution, many of which remain relatively static over time. Thus the truly new is prevented and novelty is relegated at most to surface level representations, which, if used, often lead to confused offerings that are trying to appear new but succeed only in covering yesterday’s ordinary object in a shiny facade. The new then obfuscates meaning and use, defeating the entire purpose of creating a solution in the first place.
This does not mean there is no place for decoration, fun, artistic touches, and even whimsy, but they do not belong at the focal point of a solution, where clarity, purpose, and satisfaction must reign supreme. Rather than by artistic expression, these more important characteristics are produced by design craft: the thoughtful, deliberate application of knowledgeable, principled, and wise solving actions. This craft imbues the solution with a value derived from usefulness and usableness primarily, though they can be enhanced by desirability. Creating desire, though, is not the same as creating artistic attraction. The audience and purposes served are entirely different. Success of a designed object occurs coincident with a satisfaction enabled but not produced by it. Success of art takes many forms, but satisfaction of the beholder is rarely among them.
Good design demands a level of passion and care-taking on par with the creation of art. Exercising design at that level can result in artful, desirable solutions. Good design is not art, however, and is more valuable for that.
The act of design aims to find the best fit between identified problems and possible solutions within understood contexts. Inside that frame, design should be artful in its completeness and detail. But true art -- purely creative and beholden to no one -- may be almost never appropriate, possible, or even desirable. Even what seems like a truly new, artistic, solution by necessity must and will be broken down into visual and interactive concepts that match to the human capabilities present in the context of the solution, many of which remain relatively static over time. Thus the truly new is prevented and novelty is relegated at most to surface level representations, which, if used, often lead to confused offerings that are trying to appear new but succeed only in covering yesterday’s ordinary object in a shiny facade. The new then obfuscates meaning and use, defeating the entire purpose of creating a solution in the first place.
This does not mean there is no place for decoration, fun, artistic touches, and even whimsy, but they do not belong at the focal point of a solution, where clarity, purpose, and satisfaction must reign supreme. Rather than by artistic expression, these more important characteristics are produced by design craft: the thoughtful, deliberate application of knowledgeable, principled, and wise solving actions. This craft imbues the solution with a value derived from usefulness and usableness primarily, though they can be enhanced by desirability. Creating desire, though, is not the same as creating artistic attraction. The audience and purposes served are entirely different. Success of a designed object occurs coincident with a satisfaction enabled but not produced by it. Success of art takes many forms, but satisfaction of the beholder is rarely among them.
Good design demands a level of passion and care-taking on par with the creation of art. Exercising design at that level can result in artful, desirable solutions. Good design is not art, however, and is more valuable for that.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Hey, the new kid is cute!
Multiple developers and PMs have asked me about how they could "get started" in UX design. My response is always to ask them what their goals of exploring this question are. Do they want to become better at their job by understanding design? Do they want to augment their job by being able to do some design? Or are they looking at exploring a career change?
My questions are mostly so they start thinking about why they're really asking, since usually this is simply infatuation and the long term hasn't been considered. UX Design is currently in some ways the cute new kid getting lots of attention in class at school and everyone is wondering how to get a little closer. So I don't really care what their answer is, because the curiosity is a good thing and I want everyone to know more about design. But just as importantly, I want people to know why they pursue a certain thing. Life seems to work best when your pursuits have passion behind them.
The next step is to give them my favorite getting-acquainted-with-the-heart-of-design reading material, two books and an article that focus on how design is for enabling and delighting people as they try to make life happen. These three cover or touch on most of the things I still think about daily as I pursue my second decade of design. Maybe they'll help you, too.
The Inmates are Running The Asylum
Now, sometimes I get the response that they've been copying Microsoft or Apple design, or using designs they've found on other websites. I reply that this is good. Emulation is a good way to learn design technique. To really understand how to design for other people, though, requires learning how to create design solutions by identifying, analyzing, and solving problems before you apply design techniques. If that’s the desired direction, one should start by reading the above and see what is inspiring. If the passion to make things better through creation comes to life, then a whole world of design knowledge and skill to absorb will open up in front of you.
My questions are mostly so they start thinking about why they're really asking, since usually this is simply infatuation and the long term hasn't been considered. UX Design is currently in some ways the cute new kid getting lots of attention in class at school and everyone is wondering how to get a little closer. So I don't really care what their answer is, because the curiosity is a good thing and I want everyone to know more about design. But just as importantly, I want people to know why they pursue a certain thing. Life seems to work best when your pursuits have passion behind them.
The next step is to give them my favorite getting-acquainted-with-the-heart-of-design reading material, two books and an article that focus on how design is for enabling and delighting people as they try to make life happen. These three cover or touch on most of the things I still think about daily as I pursue my second decade of design. Maybe they'll help you, too.
Now, sometimes I get the response that they've been copying Microsoft or Apple design, or using designs they've found on other websites. I reply that this is good. Emulation is a good way to learn design technique. To really understand how to design for other people, though, requires learning how to create design solutions by identifying, analyzing, and solving problems before you apply design techniques. If that’s the desired direction, one should start by reading the above and see what is inspiring. If the passion to make things better through creation comes to life, then a whole world of design knowledge and skill to absorb will open up in front of you.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
vision over visibility
There was a time when I could rightly be accused of being a rabid U2 fan. Those days are gone, but some of their older music is still among my favorites. By the time No Line on The Horizon came out in 2009, though, I was quite disillusioned with the band and only gave the album a cursory listen or two.
Somehow however, 3 years later, I am completely taken in by a deep cut from the record, Moment of Surrender. The solitary mood, the plaintive lyrics, the languid music. It's been a soundtrack by itself for me for the past couple of months. And I couldn't even tell you how I heard it again after several years of avoiding U2.
Have a listen.
In a few weeks or so I expect this to wear off, but for now it simply fits, no matter how I used to feel or feel now about the band. That's music. Sometimes you find it. Sometimes it finds you.
Somehow however, 3 years later, I am completely taken in by a deep cut from the record, Moment of Surrender. The solitary mood, the plaintive lyrics, the languid music. It's been a soundtrack by itself for me for the past couple of months. And I couldn't even tell you how I heard it again after several years of avoiding U2.
Have a listen.
In a few weeks or so I expect this to wear off, but for now it simply fits, no matter how I used to feel or feel now about the band. That's music. Sometimes you find it. Sometimes it finds you.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Get busy living
Probably my favorite movie, The Shawshank Redemption, has the only movie line I can almost quote accurately. Red and Andy are sitting in the prison yard after a horrendous series of weeks that Andy’s spent in solitary confinement. As the two of them discuss the desperation of prison life, Andy seems to have had some sort of breakdown while Red has apparently given up all hope of living outside the walls. Their ideas of the future diverging, Andy tells Red, “I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy living, or get busy dyin’.”
I’d like to say I’ve lived every day like that line since seeing the movie, but the most I can say is that I’ve wanted to and often it has helped me make sense of life and its choices. That in almost every circumstance I can step back and see what leads me toward life and what leads toward death, even if it’s “just” a deadening of mind or spirit.
It was with these sorts of thoughts that in 2009 I prepared to face being laid off months before those who decided that knew they would. And those thoughts propelled me into making myself into a noob again in order to learn how to be a serious designer in other mediums beyond speech recognition. And to go further in 2011 by applying to and attending CCA’s Leading by Design Fellowship program (recommended!) long distance and on top of having teenage kids and a demanding job.
Now, in 2012, I feel drawn to life in even bigger ways. I’ve moved with my family to Seattle, WA to pursue a new job and new opportunities. I’ve decided I need to find a way to gain the equivalent of a master’s degree in design management without going back to school. And I need to write.
Opposite from, and opposing, all that, there are things I need to let go of. Unhealthy ways of thinking. Unproductive uses of time. I need even less getting busy dyin’. I need even more getting busy living. So here goes.
I’d like to say I’ve lived every day like that line since seeing the movie, but the most I can say is that I’ve wanted to and often it has helped me make sense of life and its choices. That in almost every circumstance I can step back and see what leads me toward life and what leads toward death, even if it’s “just” a deadening of mind or spirit.
It was with these sorts of thoughts that in 2009 I prepared to face being laid off months before those who decided that knew they would. And those thoughts propelled me into making myself into a noob again in order to learn how to be a serious designer in other mediums beyond speech recognition. And to go further in 2011 by applying to and attending CCA’s Leading by Design Fellowship program (recommended!) long distance and on top of having teenage kids and a demanding job.
Now, in 2012, I feel drawn to life in even bigger ways. I’ve moved with my family to Seattle, WA to pursue a new job and new opportunities. I’ve decided I need to find a way to gain the equivalent of a master’s degree in design management without going back to school. And I need to write.
Opposite from, and opposing, all that, there are things I need to let go of. Unhealthy ways of thinking. Unproductive uses of time. I need even less getting busy dyin’. I need even more getting busy living. So here goes.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Live from Punxsutawney - The groundhog emerges
WOW! I'm really sorry I let so much time go by. My apologies to the folks that were actually reading once in a while!
To catch you up, I was on a GREAT project in the fall, working for Liz Bacon at Devise to design a browser-based revenue management system for hospitals. It was so cool to learn from her and work with talents like Neil Doxtader and Stacy Westbrook, as well as our cool customer.
Unfortunately, last year's dry spell was more than the project could make up for, so I had to make the difficult decision to go back into FTE-land (sleep for now, dol). However, I landed a great gig with Microsoft (very unexpected for me) with a solid group of designers. I'm in an org called Speech@Microsoft (formerly Tellme), part of the Office team, and am helping partners understand the value of great UX/UI Design, how to do it, and how to measure it. It's a brand new role for MSFT and for me. So far, things are going well. And I really like working for Bill's little company. It's an exciting time to be there. A time when design matters more and more everyday to success. Ask me what it's like. I'd love to share. There's much more!
Personal life has been crazy, but I won't get into that here. I'm just hoping to come at you with more design thoughts and teaching moments, starting now. Don't let me stay away so long next time. (Maybe there won't be a next time!)
To catch you up, I was on a GREAT project in the fall, working for Liz Bacon at Devise to design a browser-based revenue management system for hospitals. It was so cool to learn from her and work with talents like Neil Doxtader and Stacy Westbrook, as well as our cool customer.
Unfortunately, last year's dry spell was more than the project could make up for, so I had to make the difficult decision to go back into FTE-land (sleep for now, dol). However, I landed a great gig with Microsoft (very unexpected for me) with a solid group of designers. I'm in an org called Speech@Microsoft (formerly Tellme), part of the Office team, and am helping partners understand the value of great UX/UI Design, how to do it, and how to measure it. It's a brand new role for MSFT and for me. So far, things are going well. And I really like working for Bill's little company. It's an exciting time to be there. A time when design matters more and more everyday to success. Ask me what it's like. I'd love to share. There's much more!
Personal life has been crazy, but I won't get into that here. I'm just hoping to come at you with more design thoughts and teaching moments, starting now. Don't let me stay away so long next time. (Maybe there won't be a next time!)
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
More isn’t better, but (help me with) Something Else is
Sometimes it occurs to me that we designers have tools in our toolbox that we use trustingly but haven’t explained why to others. Such a tool is usually rightfully worthy of our use and trust, but should be accompanied by sound theories and reasons. To that end, I thought I’d spend a little time on the origins of the VUI design component “help me with something else” and its variants.
Ideas around it first began back in 2000 or so on a project at Intervoice for a British Columbian transit company. We were designing a menu of options and were dissatisfied with the in vogue wording used to point to choices that were on a secondary menu. I.e.:
“You can say ‘plan a trip’, ‘get a schedule’, ‘paratransit’, or ‘more options’.”
That sort of phrasing seemed to be clunky and out of character for the design feel we wanted to deliver and we just felt it was inadequate for callers to latch onto.
In an informal discussion, one of my team members said “we need something else”, referring to the current choices being used in the design world, such as “more choices”, “other”, “none of those”, etc. When he said that, we looked at each other and said, “why not try ‘something else’ in the prompt?” So we began thinking about this:
“You can say ‘plan a trip’, ‘get a schedule’, ‘paratransit’, or ‘something else’.”
We liked where that was going, but quickly thought of a semantic problem in that the instruction seemed not to refer so much to additional choices but rather to telling the caller that they could say just about anything else. That, of course, was not the case and would cause interaction issues. Plus, the phrase seemed overly ambiguous, maybe even more so than “more options”. So after a bit of round-and-round about it, we determined that we wanted to try the phrase “help me with something else” (HMWSE).
“You can say ‘plan a trip, ‘get a schedule’, ‘paratransit’, or ‘help me with something else’.”
Though it might seem pedestrian now, this was a pretty novel idea at that time. The “more options” construction came directly from DTMF IVR menu structures, meaning it was deeply ingrained as the default presentation. Furthermore, in the early days of voice interaction design, there was an emphasis on pithy phrasing and HMWSE seemed like a mouthful. However, it had several strong characteristics that appealed to us. It was clear, used more common wording, and we actually heard similar phrasing in everyday conversations around us.
Fate, though, had other plans then. For a couple of reasons, we weren’t able to use the idea in that current design. But I held on to it for several years and finally had the opportunity to try it out again in 2004 at Voice Partners. We were working a significant redesign for a mobile carrier’s customer service line. As you can imagine, there were many functions for callers to choose from in the application. As soon as I saw the struggle with how to represent the concept of other things the callers could choose, I suggested that we try out HMWSE. I walked through its origins and we had some good discussion about why we though it would work. So we tried it in usability testing in opposition to the traditional “more options” and it was then that the strongest reason for the superiority of HMWSE emerged.
As we watched and listened to participants move through and struggle with the menus, two patterns of behavior became clear around their decisions to access more choices. Many of those who used “more options” seemed to be exhibiting surfing behavior triggered by that phrase. That is, they wanted to hear and think about all possible choices before committing to one because “more options” seemed to mean “more options that you might want to hear before you make a decision”. This frequently led, though, to failures in the menus as callers encountered cognitive load problems having to hold all the choices and their possible meanings in mind. Callers who heard and used HMWSE, however, did not encounter nearly the same number of problems. They were not surfing but rather, and this is the key point, they were listening to and then rejecting previously heard choices when they said HMWSE.
“Help me with something else” allowed them to hear, absorb, then discard choices they did not consider valid and specify to the system that new choices should be presented.
This was a major eye-opener for me, and my co-designers. While we had suspected that HMWSE was better, we had discovered a solid cognitive reason for it. Callers clearly preferred not to surf, but to have a way to eliminate choices rather than play a guessing game. Thus, HMWSE became a new best practice for use when menus exceeded a certain length.
Failing menu: “You can say ‘my bill’, ‘my plan’, ‘technical support’, or ‘more options’.”
Winning menu: “You can say ‘my bill’, ‘my plan’, or ‘technical support’. You can also say ‘help me with something else’.”
Now, to be clear, all the other principles of good menu design still apply. Choices must be clear, unique, and aurally distinct, among others. HMWSE is not a ticket to allow “anything goes” menu construction. But, when used with a solid set of menu items that need to span more than one presentation instance, it is the best choice for letting callers know that if they do not hear what they want in the initial list, they have a clear way of indicating that they want to discard the first list and hear another.
“More Options” for HMWSE
In the several years since that discovery, the use of HMWSE has grown in two ways.
First, I’ve encountered situations where a variation of HMWSE works better than the original wording. Semantically the concept is the same, though. An example is:
“You can say ‘car’, ‘bus’, or ‘train’. You can also say ‘I need different transportation.’”
Additionally, we began using a variant of the idea with open-ended prompts. Until the last couple of years, the standard was to coerce the caller into saying anything at a “What are you calling about today?” type prompt in the hopes we could pin a meaning on it. However, many callers are just not sure what to do or what will happen and so are reluctant to give an actionable utterance. At Voice Partners, then at SpeechCycle, rather then “erroring” into a menu, we began very successfully using “what are my choices” and “give me some choices” as ways callers could specify that they preferred a menu over the open prompt. Such phrases allow caller choice and control versus locking them into a specific interaction method.
The other area of growth is a more widespread use beyond up-front menus where HMWSE can still mean “I don’t want any of those so give me different options”. Some examples are follow-up menus after tasks are completed, lists of items to select from, and lists of global actions. Again, as the previous area indicates, these additional contexts sometimes require variations on the wording.
A Note: SE <> HMWSE
One thing I want to be clear about is that the use of HMWSE is better than just offering callers the phrase “something else”. In the past couple of years, I’ve heard systems presenting simply “something else” in menus, and that’s a mistake for reasons mentioned above. It fails on a semantic level to be a clear instruction to obtain other menu choices and instead at best sounds like an invitation to say anything. I strongly discourage its use.
So, don’t be afraid to offer your callers a good range of choices in more than one menu. In HMWSE you have a tested tool to use for that. Yes, there is research that I consider valid that shows that menus with more than four or five items can work well. However, there are contexts in which doing so might not be the best approach. Because of that, HMWSE helps round out the set of tools to help create great voice interactions when offering choices to callers.
Ideas around it first began back in 2000 or so on a project at Intervoice for a British Columbian transit company. We were designing a menu of options and were dissatisfied with the in vogue wording used to point to choices that were on a secondary menu. I.e.:
“You can say ‘plan a trip’, ‘get a schedule’, ‘paratransit’, or ‘more options’.”
That sort of phrasing seemed to be clunky and out of character for the design feel we wanted to deliver and we just felt it was inadequate for callers to latch onto.
In an informal discussion, one of my team members said “we need something else”, referring to the current choices being used in the design world, such as “more choices”, “other”, “none of those”, etc. When he said that, we looked at each other and said, “why not try ‘something else’ in the prompt?” So we began thinking about this:
“You can say ‘plan a trip’, ‘get a schedule’, ‘paratransit’, or ‘something else’.”
We liked where that was going, but quickly thought of a semantic problem in that the instruction seemed not to refer so much to additional choices but rather to telling the caller that they could say just about anything else. That, of course, was not the case and would cause interaction issues. Plus, the phrase seemed overly ambiguous, maybe even more so than “more options”. So after a bit of round-and-round about it, we determined that we wanted to try the phrase “help me with something else” (HMWSE).
“You can say ‘plan a trip, ‘get a schedule’, ‘paratransit’, or ‘help me with something else’.”
Though it might seem pedestrian now, this was a pretty novel idea at that time. The “more options” construction came directly from DTMF IVR menu structures, meaning it was deeply ingrained as the default presentation. Furthermore, in the early days of voice interaction design, there was an emphasis on pithy phrasing and HMWSE seemed like a mouthful. However, it had several strong characteristics that appealed to us. It was clear, used more common wording, and we actually heard similar phrasing in everyday conversations around us.
Fate, though, had other plans then. For a couple of reasons, we weren’t able to use the idea in that current design. But I held on to it for several years and finally had the opportunity to try it out again in 2004 at Voice Partners. We were working a significant redesign for a mobile carrier’s customer service line. As you can imagine, there were many functions for callers to choose from in the application. As soon as I saw the struggle with how to represent the concept of other things the callers could choose, I suggested that we try out HMWSE. I walked through its origins and we had some good discussion about why we though it would work. So we tried it in usability testing in opposition to the traditional “more options” and it was then that the strongest reason for the superiority of HMWSE emerged.
As we watched and listened to participants move through and struggle with the menus, two patterns of behavior became clear around their decisions to access more choices. Many of those who used “more options” seemed to be exhibiting surfing behavior triggered by that phrase. That is, they wanted to hear and think about all possible choices before committing to one because “more options” seemed to mean “more options that you might want to hear before you make a decision”. This frequently led, though, to failures in the menus as callers encountered cognitive load problems having to hold all the choices and their possible meanings in mind. Callers who heard and used HMWSE, however, did not encounter nearly the same number of problems. They were not surfing but rather, and this is the key point, they were listening to and then rejecting previously heard choices when they said HMWSE.
“Help me with something else” allowed them to hear, absorb, then discard choices they did not consider valid and specify to the system that new choices should be presented.
This was a major eye-opener for me, and my co-designers. While we had suspected that HMWSE was better, we had discovered a solid cognitive reason for it. Callers clearly preferred not to surf, but to have a way to eliminate choices rather than play a guessing game. Thus, HMWSE became a new best practice for use when menus exceeded a certain length.
Failing menu: “You can say ‘my bill’, ‘my plan’, ‘technical support’, or ‘more options’.”
Winning menu: “You can say ‘my bill’, ‘my plan’, or ‘technical support’. You can also say ‘help me with something else’.”
Now, to be clear, all the other principles of good menu design still apply. Choices must be clear, unique, and aurally distinct, among others. HMWSE is not a ticket to allow “anything goes” menu construction. But, when used with a solid set of menu items that need to span more than one presentation instance, it is the best choice for letting callers know that if they do not hear what they want in the initial list, they have a clear way of indicating that they want to discard the first list and hear another.
“More Options” for HMWSE
In the several years since that discovery, the use of HMWSE has grown in two ways.
First, I’ve encountered situations where a variation of HMWSE works better than the original wording. Semantically the concept is the same, though. An example is:
“You can say ‘car’, ‘bus’, or ‘train’. You can also say ‘I need different transportation.’”
Additionally, we began using a variant of the idea with open-ended prompts. Until the last couple of years, the standard was to coerce the caller into saying anything at a “What are you calling about today?” type prompt in the hopes we could pin a meaning on it. However, many callers are just not sure what to do or what will happen and so are reluctant to give an actionable utterance. At Voice Partners, then at SpeechCycle, rather then “erroring” into a menu, we began very successfully using “what are my choices” and “give me some choices” as ways callers could specify that they preferred a menu over the open prompt. Such phrases allow caller choice and control versus locking them into a specific interaction method.
The other area of growth is a more widespread use beyond up-front menus where HMWSE can still mean “I don’t want any of those so give me different options”. Some examples are follow-up menus after tasks are completed, lists of items to select from, and lists of global actions. Again, as the previous area indicates, these additional contexts sometimes require variations on the wording.
A Note: SE <> HMWSE
One thing I want to be clear about is that the use of HMWSE is better than just offering callers the phrase “something else”. In the past couple of years, I’ve heard systems presenting simply “something else” in menus, and that’s a mistake for reasons mentioned above. It fails on a semantic level to be a clear instruction to obtain other menu choices and instead at best sounds like an invitation to say anything. I strongly discourage its use.
So, don’t be afraid to offer your callers a good range of choices in more than one menu. In HMWSE you have a tested tool to use for that. Yes, there is research that I consider valid that shows that menus with more than four or five items can work well. However, there are contexts in which doing so might not be the best approach. Because of that, HMWSE helps round out the set of tools to help create great voice interactions when offering choices to callers.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
This can be the beginning of a beautiful friendship
An interesting thing about going to tech-oriented conferences that mix business managers and implementers is the tension between messages. There are often competing and conflicting voices promoting technology and customer (user) experience. The technology vendors publicize the latest new thing, the upgrade that brings it all together, and the surefire way to get more customers spending more money. The experience folks shout that whatever is to be done must be done based purely on customer need and desire; that user experience (UX) is all that matters.
Now, it's no secret which side I've been on in most of these public discourses. Though I've been on the tech side in some cases, mostly by far I've preached from the gospel of good experience. And in the situation that it's clear that moving toward a certain technology would harm customer experience, my position would be unwavering.
However, the primary argument and distinction is no longer valid and true to me. I now see these two as elements on a continuum. Even as elements to alternate during and maybe even between projects. They are interdependent, and maybe even codependent.
The way I see it, many of our advances in customer experience have relied on or been part of new technology or new use of existing technology. From the other side, technology relies on good customer experience for successful adoption. Look at Amazon during the emergence of the commercial web. And then there's everybody's favorite example, Apple's iPhone. Both involved a push forward in customer experience AND the use of technology. Neither would be as successful without the blend of both. And neither would be as interesting if one aspect won out over the other.
Where I'm going with this is to request a truce in the tech versus UX battle. Both are good and both are needed. Tech creators need to acknowledge that they need good UX design to win the hearts and hands of consumers. UX-ers need to acknowledge that good technology is needed to advance parts of our cause and that new (good) tech gives us a chance to shine.
Before the truce can be fully agreed to though, we have a little catching up to do in the basics. Too much technology, useful as it can be, has been put out there without the needed UX crafting to accompany it. Because of that, both the users (consumers) and the technology are getting short shrift. Users feel ignored and abused. The tech vendors are getting slammed for very correctable reasons. We need to stop the train for a bit and get the interaction with the technology to the point where users can easily and satisfyingly do what they want to. Get the basics to the right level, then continue with a balanced approach.
(Aside: Not all tech implementations are redeemable, I know. But I am setting those cases aside for now and assuming that much of it can be helped.)
To illustrate, think again about what happened in the iPhone. For all its glory, it introduced very little new technology. Its primary features existed in other released or demoed products. The "new" about the iPhone is the better way that Apple blended the technology and UX.
Alternatively, there is also evidence that drawing back the level of technology used while improving the user experience is also effective. Wired magazine shows the examples of the Flip video camera and Skype, among others, in a recent article. Now, I disagree with the assessment they make that these simpler and easier to use products are just "good enough" since the implication is that they are inferior to the more feature-rich products. By typical standards such as profitability and rate of adoption, the new breeds are superior to their overdone predecessors.
There are many other areas where one approach or the other is needed, and I'll point to voice interaction as my prime example. A great many applications out there use speech recognition technology that is only a few years old. But most of the applications were designed using old or no design principles by people with negligible design training, if any. Furthermore, the technology is often under or incorrectly used. And the consumer reaction has been predictable. Interactive Voice Response is one of the most maligned technologies in our current age. On top of that, it often fails to meet the business goals for which it was brought in. This was avoidable and can be made right. It requires simply taking a break from the bumbling techno-lust and focusing on getting the UX in line with the level of technology chosen. Or even reducing the use of technology while improving performance through a UX focus.
So, it's time for a reset. For catching up and scaling down. We could make a huge positive difference in both business success and customer satisfaction by improving the user experience to the level of being on par with the state of deployed technology. And then we could grow both together. Satisfyingly, profitably, successfully.
Care to join me?
Now, it's no secret which side I've been on in most of these public discourses. Though I've been on the tech side in some cases, mostly by far I've preached from the gospel of good experience. And in the situation that it's clear that moving toward a certain technology would harm customer experience, my position would be unwavering.
However, the primary argument and distinction is no longer valid and true to me. I now see these two as elements on a continuum. Even as elements to alternate during and maybe even between projects. They are interdependent, and maybe even codependent.
The way I see it, many of our advances in customer experience have relied on or been part of new technology or new use of existing technology. From the other side, technology relies on good customer experience for successful adoption. Look at Amazon during the emergence of the commercial web. And then there's everybody's favorite example, Apple's iPhone. Both involved a push forward in customer experience AND the use of technology. Neither would be as successful without the blend of both. And neither would be as interesting if one aspect won out over the other.
Where I'm going with this is to request a truce in the tech versus UX battle. Both are good and both are needed. Tech creators need to acknowledge that they need good UX design to win the hearts and hands of consumers. UX-ers need to acknowledge that good technology is needed to advance parts of our cause and that new (good) tech gives us a chance to shine.
Before the truce can be fully agreed to though, we have a little catching up to do in the basics. Too much technology, useful as it can be, has been put out there without the needed UX crafting to accompany it. Because of that, both the users (consumers) and the technology are getting short shrift. Users feel ignored and abused. The tech vendors are getting slammed for very correctable reasons. We need to stop the train for a bit and get the interaction with the technology to the point where users can easily and satisfyingly do what they want to. Get the basics to the right level, then continue with a balanced approach.
(Aside: Not all tech implementations are redeemable, I know. But I am setting those cases aside for now and assuming that much of it can be helped.)
To illustrate, think again about what happened in the iPhone. For all its glory, it introduced very little new technology. Its primary features existed in other released or demoed products. The "new" about the iPhone is the better way that Apple blended the technology and UX.
Alternatively, there is also evidence that drawing back the level of technology used while improving the user experience is also effective. Wired magazine shows the examples of the Flip video camera and Skype, among others, in a recent article. Now, I disagree with the assessment they make that these simpler and easier to use products are just "good enough" since the implication is that they are inferior to the more feature-rich products. By typical standards such as profitability and rate of adoption, the new breeds are superior to their overdone predecessors.
There are many other areas where one approach or the other is needed, and I'll point to voice interaction as my prime example. A great many applications out there use speech recognition technology that is only a few years old. But most of the applications were designed using old or no design principles by people with negligible design training, if any. Furthermore, the technology is often under or incorrectly used. And the consumer reaction has been predictable. Interactive Voice Response is one of the most maligned technologies in our current age. On top of that, it often fails to meet the business goals for which it was brought in. This was avoidable and can be made right. It requires simply taking a break from the bumbling techno-lust and focusing on getting the UX in line with the level of technology chosen. Or even reducing the use of technology while improving performance through a UX focus.
So, it's time for a reset. For catching up and scaling down. We could make a huge positive difference in both business success and customer satisfaction by improving the user experience to the level of being on par with the state of deployed technology. And then we could grow both together. Satisfyingly, profitably, successfully.
Care to join me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)