Making UX design famous
Posted: 28/05/2010 Filed under: Uncategorized, user experience | Tags: job market, user experience, ux design 2 Comments »In the late 80′s, as I was finishing school and choosing a career, the cool thing to go into was advertising. It seemed so exciting and exclusive, maybe because advertising people were so natural and unashamedly self-promoting.
20 years later, its has lost great part of the glamour. So what do kids want to be when they grow up nowadays?
If you read this blog you probably know I work with digital UX design, a field (and market) that has been growing steadily in size and strength, even during this long economy downturn. The strange thing is that it has been a silent growth.
Everyone uses digital products and services (like everyone used to enjoy watching creative ads), our clients certainly see a huge value in our work, but somehow UX design hasn’t become famous as a professional choice.
There is a lot of demand for talented interaction and visual interface designers, it pays well, and it’s damn interesting and creative work. So why is it under the radar?
I think we need to do a better job of communicating all this goodness to the mainstream. I’m just building upon a larger debate about defining what we do and finding talent, which has been going on in Europe.
How would you explain and sell a career in UX design to those bright young things (before they waste their talent somewhere else)?
Easy on the eye, easy on the brain
Posted: 07/09/2009 Filed under: Content, user experience | Tags: user experience Leave a comment »Dom Phillips has just published an article for the FT.com showing that readership of tabloids in Brazil is soaring – despite the Internet - at a time that most of the newspaper industry is bleeding.
I’m not going into the prejudices which come to my mind when I think of regular tabloid readers. But the article made me think about what makes some formats so successful.
Entertainment hungry, low attention span, uninterested in deep reflection. I’m not describing tabloid readers, I’m talking about most of us Internet users. The way people read paper tabloids have a lot in common with the way we consume information on the web. In fact, tabloids need to change very little from print to online versions. Compare the paper version of The Sun with their website or even their iPhone app, for instance.
User-experience professionals have known this for a long time. Fat headlines, bite size text, picture rich, attention grabbing editorial style has been the norm and let’s admit, a reference of best practice (we scan – we don’t read, etc.)
All in the name of usability – or we are all closet tabloid fans!
From Business to Buttons 2009
Posted: 07/05/2009 Filed under: Product design, user experience | Tags: design, product development, user experience Leave a comment »From Business to Buttons 2009 brings us Garr Reynolds, presentation guru and web 2.0 thought leader, along with a great mix of tech heavyweights, startup cases and experts in innovation including:
- Matt Jones (founder of Dopplr.com)
- Scott Berkun (author of The Myths of Innovation).
- Todd Lefelt (Director of User Experience at Huge)
- Microsoft (sponsor) with the Interactive Surface tabletop.
- The Cocktail (sponsor) introducing Iwannagothere.com, the travellers social network born in Spain.
- Complete list of speakers, sessions and registration at businesstobuttons.com
When and where: 11-12 of June in Malmö, Sweden
Short bios:
Garr Reynolds, Associate Professor of Management at Kansai Gaidai University in Japan, is the creator of the most popular website on presentation design and delivery on the net: presentationzen.com. He shares lessons and perspectives on making remarkable presentations that are simpler, visual, engaging, and effective. He is the former Manager of Worldwide User Group Relations at Apple Computer, and spent most of the ’90s at Sumitomo Electric Industries in Osaka.
Scott Berkun is the author of bestselling books “Making things happen” and “The Myths of Innovation”. At Microsoft from 1994-2003 he oversaw projects such as Internet Explorer (v1-5 of), Windows and MSN. He has taught at the University of Washington, regularly contributes to Harvard Business Digital, and has featured as an innovation and management expert on MSNBC and on CNBC. He writes frequently on his popular blog: scottberkun.com
Matt Jones is a founder and lead designer of Dopplr.com, a service for frequent travellers. His previous positions include Director of User-Experience Design at Nokia Design, and creative director for Sapient in London. In the late 90s, he was creative director for the launch of BBC News Online. He has spoken at events such as Reboot, Ars Electronica, O’Reilly’s Etech and FooCamp. He now blogs at www.magicalnihilism.com.
Todd Lefelt is the Director of User Experience of Huge, where he oversees research and interaction design for projects including Audible.com, Nickelodeon and The Warner Music Group. Todd has over 10 years of experience leading the definition of scalable interactive media strategies and user friendly experiences. www.hugeinc.com
Iwannagothere.com is a social network dedicated to travel, an off-shoot of The Cocktail. During the conference the people behind Iwannagothere will be showing how they have used the Effect Map methodology in the development of the service and will be launching their mobile service, co-designed by The Cocktail and InUse.
About the conference
From Business to Buttons is the most important European conference on Design for Business. It’s third edition runs between 11-12 of June in Malmö, Sweden.
For whom: designers, business strategists and user experience professionals.
Organisers: InUse, Ergonomidesing, Malmö University – Sponsors: The Cocktail (Spain) and Microsoft.
Forgetful and happy
Posted: 13/04/2009 Filed under: Product design, user experience | Tags: customer research, service design, user experience 1 Comment »I have been reading some interesting articles on how service designers have been using Behavioural Sciences to improve customer satisfaction and… to make more money.
Behavioural sciences have shown that customers have a short memory span and we should bear this in mind as we design and manage services. It’s not as evil and deceiving as it sounds – it is more about leaving the best to end. Some of the findings that are relevant to user-experience include:
- We prefer progressive improvements. We can tolerate weak starts and decent middles if what follows is a good end (the concept of Beta services). But we are cruel and judgemental when services start well and disappoint in the end.
- We prefer to resolve unpleasant things early, getting them out of the way and taking our time with lighter/ fun things. Kind of obvious but it gives us the clear hint that if we need to ask the user to make an effort (e.g. registration) or to inform them of a limitation (e.g. availability, delivery policies) it should be done sooner than later.
- A positive end is the part of the experience that we remember the most.
This is a great endorsement to UX designers and clients who understand that they need to dedicate as much attention to homepages as to lower level/exit pages – knowing that any page can be an entry point and that they have little control over the user’s exit points.
Using some basic Behavioural Sciences concepts to improve business is no evil plot to control the customer’s mind. It’s about sustaining the quality along the whole user-experience and surprising the user positively at the end – whenever that is.
Read more:
Want to Perfect your Company’s Service? Use Behavioral Science
Richard Chase for Harvard Business Review
A company’s website IS the company
Posted: 01/03/2009 Filed under: marketing, user experience | Tags: marketing mix, online marketing, user experience 2 Comments »So much is said about the Internet changing the face of advertising, but this quote (above in the title) from a customer we interviewed many years ago is so right and shows perfectly how the Internet has changed everything in marketing. And by marketing I mean all the Ps (product, price, place and promotion).
User experience (or customer experience) has gained so much weight in the corporate world, perhaps because it got to mean company experience. Even if an organisation does not sell anything directly on the web, it’s online presence alone has the power to add stars to its brand perception (to customers, partners, investors…) or to erode it.
No modern company can afford to consider it’s web presence lightly or just accessory as components of interactive marketing and customer experience become one thing:
What goes through your customers mind if you offer them a satisfactory user experience:
Perception: This company knows their business – They are smart, competent, trustworthy and aware of customer’s needs.
Result: Yes, I’ll buy your product, come back for more, tell my peers about it – thanks a lot!
What goes through your customers mind if you offer them a disappointing user experience:
Perception: The people behind this company are incompetent and not to be taken seriously – They are clueless, clumsy, negligent and don’t value their customers enough.
Unless the company is a monopoly (which happens!), the result would be loss in sales, traffic, brand equity, whatever is important to the organisation’s bottom line.
Interactive marketing means much more than banners and search engine tactics. It is 100% intertwined with your customer’s experience and should be thought of as part of a long term business strategy.
Are we doing product or service design?
Posted: 05/02/2009 Filed under: Product design, user experience | Tags: customer experience, design, marketing, online, product development, service design, user experience Leave a comment »Sometimes when you try to decide if the output of an interactive project is a product or a service, things get blurry. Traditionally products are defined as tangible goods as opposed to services which are defined as intangible goods. Not so helpful… What is that tangible on the web? Perhaps the interface, but not much else.
I prefer the definition which says a product is something we own whilst a service is something we can use temporarily. The difference between buying and hiring a dinner jacket.
This definition seems useful, so I’ll try to apply it to a few real life projects (the output of which I would have called generically Product in the past):
An e-learning platform – Definitely providing an education service
An online newspaper – An information service
A software-as-a-service online shop – Can provide a similar service to a sales assistant offering expert advice and guiding the customer towards a suitable service package.
A mobile mapping application – A tricky one. I have downloaded the software (so I own it), but for it to be useful at all I need data provided by the mapping company (a service) facilitated by my network operator (also a service).
A multinational corporate website – Essentially a marketing and communication tool between company, customers, investors, press, etc. At the same time you can consider it as a provider of self-customer-services.
Why is this differentiation relevant to interactive projects?
It is pretty clear that many online projects will generate hybrid product-service offerings, just as in the physical world. But I think we (practitioners) are developing more services than we imagined, yet treating them mostly as products.
Services usually involve longer or repeated engagements with the user and perhaps we can contemplate that more efficiently. It would be really interesting to start using rich design tools such as service blueprinting in addition to content maps and prototypes.
Let’s see how it works in practice.
——–
Some interesting reading: Better than owning
Usability, user experience or customer experience?
Posted: 30/01/2009 Filed under: Product design | Tags: customer experience, product development, usability, user experience Leave a comment »Product development practitioners have little control over what happens after they hand over a project deliverable.
It’s a bit like delivering a baby and hoping the parents will be responsible and caring. Because good user-experience and ultimately the success of a website or an interactive product depends hugely on its management, perhaps more than we would like to admit. A couple of examples:
> In a content-rich site we (consultants) often have no control over the quality of incoming content.
> On an e-commerce site, we don’t determine pricing, delivery policies and fulfillment.
> A well designed, user-friendly corporate website can improve the image and perception of a traditional brand, but it can´t change the corporate culture by itself, which is ultimately what governs the relationship with their clients.
I think it’s important to differentiate usability, user experience and customer experience in terms of expectations whenever we are to be made accountable for results and ROI. There are many definitions – this is my understanding:
The good news is that there are several ways to extend our scope of influence so the final customer experience is closer to what we had conceived initially:
> Design flexibly to scale – sites tend to inflate in content, sections and functionality with the time.
> Speak to stakeholders during the project (marketing, customer care, IT…) – understand their requirements, advise on realistic resources they should plan for.
> Write a set a recommendations for post-development UX management, e.g: Fulfillment best-practices, focus areas for customer care, privacy policies, advertising and editorial guidelines, etc.
It’s great to be the product midwife but it’s much better to be the godmother!
Recent Comments