It’s always a user problem (a slight ramble)

I don’t even know where to start on this one.

I recently had a pretty big presenation. It was a magnificent disaster. I’ve decided to regard it as a very successful dada event (Dada on Wikipedia).

From that event, one thing really bugs me. The phrases “We’ll make it look nice later.” and “Well, that group does the user experience when you’re done.”

I’m employed by a technology company. I’ve done all sorts of work, from very straightforward MarCom stuff though all manner of digital marketing. But currently, I am, as my Parisian friend Julien put it “working in the basement.”

As the king of all UX at this place, I’ve been working very hard to get a single, simple point across : Everything we do, is done for the user.

Now, this is ripe for argument from all manner of code geek, account lizard, and those strange animated business suits that wander around.

They will say things like “it’s all about cost reduction for the client” or “the collaboration software enables rapid deployment of robust technologies” or some other bullshit.

Here’s the gist tho.. if all these things are so convoluted and require all manner of help from outside groups, then the client is going about the business wrong and should really just close up the majority of their online presence. It’s obviously too difficult to manage.

But we all know that’s not the real problem. The real problem is that ultimately, we want to keep on communicating with users, we want them to love us and our products, we want new and shiny things on our sites.

So it always ends up back at the user. What we do is for them.

Now, back to my original thought….

In the past few years, I’ve helped develop a few key products for my company. I’ve stressed that all the work we do towards technology is useless unless it results in something amazing when it’s seen by a user.

So I start at the user and work backwards. “What I want to do” is the basis for “How will this work”

Luckily, I have a team of very smart technologists who have similar views of changing the world, or at least having some monument erected in their name at a later date.

So… NO! it doesn’t get pretty after the fact. It gets developed from the lowest point of origin into something that was always designed to be seen, touched, smelled, felt, and used by someone.

One group is not responsible for UX, everyone is. You clients of freakish nature may have forgotten how to think about your users, but I have not.

Object, Action + Method

I was talking with a friend about car configurators, which is a topic I spend a lot of time on.

He was discussing this idea about inline config, having a small window open at specific times and ask the user to add or select an option.

In essence, a very good idea, I have several prototype screens for this sort of thing.

The problem became that the designers were struggling to figure out how the window operated, how it minimized, how the user re-activated it, and so on.

Here’s the root of the problem : They devised a Method that did not support the Object or the Action.

The super-duper Tigerstripe Approach tells us every task-based design problem has three main components. In this case they were The Car (The Object), letting users do partial configs (The Action) and the small floating window (The Method).

When one starts with a method, as many people like to do (”Dude, what if it just popped up there randomly!”), problems usually arrive.

Similar problems arise when a site-based method or set of rules is used inflexibly for all manner of data display or user interaction.

Here’s a tip, go in the right order :
Q: What are we talking about?
A: The Object

Q: What is the user response we want to promote?
A: The Action

Q: What is the best way for the user to interact with the system?
A: The Method

Save yourself some grief, there’s a reason UX is a different discipline that UI.

Joe Strummer, Wabi-Sabi, and the Fate of the Beautiful

I’ve been accused on multiple occasions of being a music snob. I am not a music snob.

I’ve also been accused of hating what is popular, simply because it is popular. This also is untrue.

Popular is usually shiny, a bit too perfect, and ultimately quite fake.

This is why Joe Strummer will always be better than any auto-tuned, packaged, top 40, american idol.

Joe strummer was authentic. Not because he was perfect, but because of his flaws.

Authenticity is a hard thing to come by these days. Sometimes it’s hard to convey what is real.

I’ve been leaning hard on the Japanese concept of Wabi-Sabi, The beauty of imperfection.

Wabi-Sabi carries emotion more than awe. The comfort of lived in furniture. The satisfaction of hand crafting a fence. The freedom from chasing the unattainable.

How does that relate to online UX?

Here’s how : The beautiful site has become ordinary and by that, untrustworthy. The site which promises value, but my not be pristine now has the advantage.

Oddly, the same ham-fisted “designers” who tell me they love things like Google and the iPod and Tivo, are the same to push a huge happy falsely designed world at me at every design review.

(sidebar: what the hell happened to subtlety?)

And then there’s a small, but very vocal group of people hollering about “Ugly Design” and promoting an aesthetic that is by design, horrific and just plain creepy.

Authentic is not beauty or ugliness… authentic is emotional reality, proven in design.

Grab a book on Wabi-Sabi… see where it takes you.

Users are Dicky and Selfish

Yes, it’s true.

Your users are dicks. They are a bunch of selfish knobs who have no appreciation for your efforts.

This is no reason to pander to them. After all, if they knew what they were doing, they’d have your job.

I’ve been seeing some alarming things lately. There’s a book out there called “worship at the altar of the user” or something like that. I’m not going to bother looking it up.

Here’s the thing… as a UX professional, I know the success of what I do depends on user adoption. I also know that my expertise gives me the ability to sway and influence users, to give them new opportunities and to move beyond what is common.

I agree that testing is important, and can inform many things, but I don’t rely on it to tell me any answers.

My friend Alan had a great quote “Don’t use research as a drunkard uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination”

I have a similar one that I use “Stop using the rear-view mirror to figure out where you’re going”

i’ll keep you posted = lets do lunch

I recall when Wired in the late 90s predicted the coming of the superstar geeks. Now user experience is just as much about interactive intuitive thinking as it is entertaining with dynamic frameworks derived from gaming metaphors and the like.

The wow factor is the discovery process that hollyweb architects prescribe with their palette of rich media, sensible organization filtered by context, and a visual system that anticipates change and movement.

Form and function in a funk all its own — naturally giving your online user an immediate pulse to relevant information, feedback, and branded distribution of self-expression.

Armed with digital appliances, they are capturing “the real”, making it engaging and clever enough to harvest more fans and motivate others to respond. Is your message compelling enough to trigger your community to self-organize and share?

Marketing an identity that empowers your audience to evolve the message itself. Steering that herd with an interaction model that gives each individual in the community the opportunity to sell your brand, that is web media.

Art vs. Commerce! Commerce won.

Apparently it makes kids cry.

With a Dave Eggers’ penned first half detailing a lousy family life for Max, and a Spike Jonze 2nd half with Max becoming King of the Wild Things, this looked like the movie of the year.

I remember the book being a bit scary. I remember Max being a bit dicky and mean as kids tend to be. I remember monsters wanting to eat him if he dared leave.

It’s not really a “kiddie” book, but it’s doomed to be a “kiddie” movie.

The studio (you know, the guys who give us crap like Norbit and Bee Movie) have decided to send it back and have it re-written and re-shot. Link Here

A Bit of Clarification…

After sending the link to this around, I got hit with a response from a very talented code geek, she said “reading this blog makes me realize how little I really do know about IA.”

Despite having Information Architect in my title for a number of years, I never believed it.

I’ve always been in the business of design, without regard to scale or scope. Design is the action of solving problems, the manifestation of optimistic activity. That’s what I do.

For example, back in the early 90s, when the web was just getting moving, I built websites…That is, I did the art, writing, coding, FTP, server maintenance, etc.

It was all the same… if you didn’t know how to code, your design was shit. If you didn’t understand design, no amount of code could hide that.

Once people got all mixed up in trying to specialize, a bit was lost.

Here’s something I found very interesting :

In Greek techne meant ’skill.’ The ancient Greeks didn’t separate art from techne, but called all artists and craftsmen technitai (makers).

The Japanese don’t have a word for art, they use a word synonymous with function, purpose and aesthetics - geijutsu.
Exerpts from the Art of Looking Sideways by Alan Fetcher

It’s that slight difference in perception that sepearates the iPod from the Kindle.

Once there was this separation of activity, I was exposed to this rather bitchy bureaucracy about who’s job was what, and what one group couldn’t do. This led to a lot of debate and name calling (F’ckn pixel pushers), but ultimately reminded me if you have something you feel you need to protect that badly, you’re probably afraid of being exposed as a fraud.

It was also odd that some people were so quick to jump into a group and adopt all the mannerisms and quirks of that group without question. I’m sure it was comfortable, and enhanced the continuation of constant employment, but I think Maude said it best:

Maude : I should like to change into a sunflower most of all. They’re so tall and simple. What flower would you like to be?
Harold : I don’t know. One of these, maybe. (holds a daisy)
Maude : Why do you say that?
Harold : Because they’re all alike.
Maude : Oooh, but they’re not. Look. See, some are smaller, some are fatter, some grow to the left, some to the right, some even have lost some petals. All kinds of observable differences. You see, Harold, I feel that much of the world’s sorrow comes from people who are this, (she points to a daisy), yet allow themselves be treated as that. (gestures to a field of daisies)

Anyways, my titles change, but I’m always in the business of design. I’m guessing there’s a lot more out there.

Speaking of tactical inspirations breaks

Working on a rich flash timeline piece for a client, found some good inspiration here and here

The best kind of sideways for me is really taking a step back. The trick is how to take a step back effectively to strip the interaction model/design out of your top-of-mind. Here are a couple approaches I do, in order:

1. Think what else you want to accomplish that day that is leisure oriented and gratifying
2. Spend a couple minutes following some RSS subject lines from various sources till you feel removed from where you are…(eg. in front of your monitor)
3. After at least 5 to 7 minutes of this mode, get back to task and keep your head empty so as design loads up you need to orient yourself
4. This is the cream part, figure out how you’re orienting yourself to the design, that should provide mucho insight

Of course there are so many other styles but the best is always getting as many eyeballs on it without cultivating that “too many cooks in the kitchen” effect where the account guy is busting out design tweaks when nobody is saying anything…and the mood has been a little silent for more than a few minutes because everybody wants to go do #2 (see above) instead of tweaking the design before the client presentation tomorrow! lol

Inspiration