Ciberia

In The Psychologist’s View of UX Design, Susan Weinschenk writes about extrapolating user experience principles from research and psychology. We get users into our lab almost every week for usability testing and research, and usually clients drop in to observe the tests too. It is my favourite part of doing UX – its like brain gym – analysing what happens in the lab always sparks interesting debate and new insights.

On the back of our research we extrapolate user experience principles that guide our design thinking on projects that have similar challenges. I’m happy to see lots of overlaps between our, and the principles in Susan’s article. So quoting from Susan’s list, here are seven principles that I have been thinking about lately.

Surfacing information

It is better to show people a little bit of information and let them choose if they want more details. The fancy term for this is progressive disclosure.

We know that people are reluctant to read detailed information on a screen. Rather than show all the information upfront, or on lengthy FAQ pages, an alternative is to surface snippets of information where users need it, providing links to more detailed information.

Defaults

Provide defaults. Defaults let people do less work to get the job done.

A lot is being written about defaults, besides helping users do less, it is also a tool that can be used when designing for behaviour change. It links to the idea of libertarian paternalism which ‘tries to influence choices in a way that will make choosers better off, as judged by themselves’.

Multi-tasking

People can’t multi-task. The research is very clear on this, so don’t expect them to.

An example of multi-tasking is asking users to collect paper documents, scan or photograph them, followed by uploading or emailing them. This sounds easy enough? Not so. Unless the process is super simple, most people will simply not do it, or postpone it indefinitely.

Mistakes

Assume people will make mistakes. Anticipate what they will be and try to prevent them.

In situations where users are likely to make errors, look for ways to shift the user’s burden onto the system. A classic example of this is when a user has to upload a file, asking them to identify the file format will cause many to fail the task. Don’t ask them, do it for them.

Memory

People can only remember about 3-4 items at a time. The 7 plus or minus 2 rule is an urban legend. Research shows the real number is 3-4.

Don’t expect users to remember information from one step to the next. Our research shows that breaking complex tasks down into a series of simple steps may fail to help users get something done, because people struggle to remember what they did in a previous step when its no longer in front of them.

Registration

Research shows that if you want people to fill out a form, give them something they want and then ask for them to fill out the form, not vice versa.

Filling out forms is something most users would rather not do. Many users will move on if you ask them to register before they are convinced that your product is useful to them. In Mobile Usability Jakob Nielsen and Raluca Budiu cautions against early registration:

Since 1999 a key usability guideline for e-commerce shopping cart and checkout processes has been to allow users to buy without having to register. Sites that allow ‘guest checkout’ have much higher conversion rates than site that require users to make up a user ID and password before they’re permitted the rare privilege of forking out their money.

Mental models

In order to create a positive UX, you can either match the conceptual model of your product or website to the users’ mental model, or you can figure out how to ‘teach’ the users to have a different mental model.

Understanding users’ mental models is ultimately why we do research. But understanding our own mental models as designers, and those of the stakeholders we design for, is equally important when we tackle wicked problems – projects where our designs need to fit both the mental models of users, and those of stakeholders in complex organisations.

User experience principles don’t provide answers to usability questions, and they don’t make our jobs easier by applying the same set of rules to all situations. Nielsen and Budiu sum it up nicely:

Usability questions seldom have a single answer. Rather, they are qualitative issues that specify the direction and nature of inevitable design trade-offs.

We find out what the design trade-offs are by doing research.

I visited Nairobi recently to do research and usability testing. Besides being my first visit to Kenya, two things excited me about going. Firstly, putting websites in front of people to find out what they think about them. And secondly, to get a better understanding of what mobile first, or mobile only, means in a country like Kenya, described as the epicenter of mobile innovation.

The battle is fierce for the hands and minds of Nairobi’s mobile phone users.

Doing research

I was going to Kenya because there were things we didn’t know – and talking to people firsthand is the best way to find out. In Nairobi we teamed up with a research company who provided space where I setup two laptops, a smart phone, and a mobile testing sled, and armed with a modicum of background knowledge, I interviewed ten people and tested two websites.

Usability testing on the move: two laptops, a smartphone, and a mobile testing sled.

Before starting a research project I sometimes worry that I won’t find useful information, either because I don’t have the right questions, or that I’m looking in the wrong place. I then remind myself that the only predictable thing about doing research is that you can’t predict what you’ll find. You have to get stuck in and do it, and be prepared to, as Erica Hall writes: Joyfully release all of your preconceived plans and ideas. In time I’ve learnt that this sense of apprehension comes from the fact that preconceived plans create a kind of comfort, whereas what you discover in research can change the entire trajectory of a project. And that is what design is all about.

The trip reminded me of three things

• The global village is mediated by technology, it provides a universal language of sorts, the result is that on the surface we all appear quite similar, but it is a trap that can hide local knowledge and insight from us.
• Africa is described as a mobile first continent. But it does not mean that mobile is the solution to all problems. Talking to people is the best way to avoid generalisations.
• When we look at interfaces we interpret meaning, putting things on screen entails taking responsibility for how we assume others think, testing means owning up to that responsibility.

Reflecting on what to do next I’m reminded of Rebekah Cox’s definition of design:

Design is a set of decisions about a product. It’s not an interface or an aesthetic, it’s not a brand or a color. Design is the actual decisions. ¹

Finding out what you don’t know is not a guarantee that things will be easier – the opposite often happens – but you’ll have information to base your decisions on.

And that is why we do research.

There are two sides to being a consultant.

On the one hand you get to work with a wide range of clients on projects that are varied and interesting. You’re exposed to different perspectives and ideas, and if you’re open to them it means you’re always learning. It keeps you on your toes and that’s what I like about it.

On the other hand, you are usually contracted to produce a deliverable at the outset of a project with limited scope for change. Sometimes you realise that what you’re doing is not exactly the right thing, but you’re somehow stuck in a one-way project track where your ability to create change is limited. This always feels like an opportunity lost.

But there is hope. Imagine a move away from purely deliverable-based contracts. In Lean UX: Applying Lean Principles to Improve User Experience Jeff Gothelf argues that we:

… give up the illusion of control that a deliverable-based contract offers but gain a freedom to pursue meaningful and high quality solutions that are defined in terms of outcomes, not feature lists.

So instead of working mostly in isolation, making something, you turn the process on its head by involving clients more in what you’re doing. What becomes visible is the boundary of a process and not the physicality of a thing. This has many advantages, Jeff Gothelf continues:

… both agency and client benefit form additional insight, feedback, and collaboration with one another.

The learning from this process may reframe the problem, or for example, bypass the creation of a wireframe deck completely, leading straight to the creation of a MVP.

Insight, feedback, and collaboration are the necessary foundations for making better products. Getting there requires boldness and a desire to explore, from both consultants and clients alike. And I think it is a risk worth taking.

The psychologist Rom Harré wrote that ‘the primary human reality is persons in conversation’. It’s a validating idea for design thinkers and user-centred designers because we do a lot of talking, and listening, to find the emotional touchpoints between people and products.

With Harré’s quote in the back of my mind I joined a World Design Capital 2014 co-design workshop, teaming up with members of the community, city officials, and fellow designers to talk about regenerating the Gatesville Central Business District and the Lansdowne Civic Precinct.

The co-design workshop was structured as an end-to-end design thinking process, and for many participants it was their first encounter with design thinking. But the premise of the day was that everyone is a design thinker, and we were encouraged to participate in conversations structured by the primary design thinking stages of:

1. empathy, context and ideas,
2. creating a vision,
3. prototyping and iteration.

Empathy, context and ideas

First up, members of the community told their stories, setting the scene and context for the workshop. Next, they brainstormed the challenges faced by the two sites in their community, followed by a card sort and voting session to identify and prioritise the key issues.

Voting in progress to whittle down prioritised issues.

Creating a vision

The brainstorming and prioritisation sessions were extended in a visioning exercise where community members were given free reign to visualise, and verbalise, the regeneration they’d like to see.

Poster sessions to share visions of the future.

Prototyping and iteration

The day concluded with a rapid prototyping session where groups made their ideas tangible by building low resolution models. At this point the designers made themselves useful by acting as coaches in the making process. Once groups were satisfied with their models they were ordered to remove 45% of their designs – saving only the most essential features – a reminder that iteration is at the heart of design thinking and that ideas are tools for inquiry, they should not constrain the emergence of new ideas.

Building models on aerial photographs.

Next steps

The models (as visions of the future) and the prioritised issues are set to inform the next stage of the design process by representing the voice of the community. And provided that the community voice is present throughout subsequent design rounds the co-design workshops will have succeeded.

What it meant to me

Since the workshop I’ve been thinking about the ideas of Humberto Maturana who wrote that communication is not just about conveying information; it is action rooted in the inseparable dynamic between language and emotion. The co-design workshops successfully used design thinking as a tool to structure conversations with the aim of surfacing words and emotions in context – using them as building blocks for new models that in turn become the basis of further action.

Everything designed is rooted in emotion. And in the context of urban South Africa, structured in its present built form by apartheid and the group areas act, the purposeful emotional neglect imposed on communities should not be repeated when designing, and upgrading, our cities.

Design thinking is a powerful process, but its value is not only as a tool, experiencing the co-design workshop with a diverse group of people changed my emotional relationship with Cape Town and its people. And changing people on an empathic level is the spark that will bring about desirable change in the spaces, structures, and interactions we design. This is the power of design thinking.

The toughest part for me growing as a designer was learning to let ideas go. I now appreciate that ideas are unstable, sometimes they need to change and grow, move on to other people, or simply fade away again. It is a realisation that has made me comfortable with not being right, but confident to stick with ideas that I believe in – my own or those of others – when they start changing.

Cennydd Bowles hits a similar vein in Letter to a Junior Designer where he writes:

In time, the distinction between idea and iteration will blur.

Now I see ideas as starting points for design journeys to be shared with others.

And I realised that becoming a better designer means thinking less about design, and honouring my life experiences as central to what I have to offer as a designer. Doing other things allows my design intuition to breathe again. Cennydd hits the nail on the head once again:

Finally, there may come a point when you realize you’re better served by thinking less about design. Work and life should always be partially separate, but there’s no doubt that the experiences you have in your life shape your work too. So please remember to be a broad, wise human being. Travel (thoughtfully) as much as you can. Read literature: a good novel will sometimes teach you more than another design book can. Remind yourself the sea exists. You’ll notice the empathy, sensitivity, cunning, and understanding you develop make your working life better too.

I reminded myself recently that the sea (still) exists – and it looks wilder, and more inspiring than ever.