Designing the User Experience at Autodesk

Exploring Design and Desire at HCII

by Julie Schiller

Ed de Guzman and I attended HCI International to present some of our UX work on visual design, and to see what we could learn from international scholars.

Our own presentation was a paper and poster on “Desirability Methods for Evaluating Visual Design”. In essence, we advocate the use of some innovative research techniques to understand how users make meaningful choices among visual design concepts. Fortunately, for our study we had access to a wealth of iconography, imagery, and logo design options from Autodesk’s brand redesign earlier this year.

Poster presentation of Desirability Methods for Evaluating Visual Design

Our study used three scaffolding techniques to assist end-users in articulating their preferences and perceptions of visual branding:

• The Think Aloud method allows users to review visual design alternative layouts and accomplish a task. While doing so they are encouraged to think-aloud about what they are observing. This is the least structured technique.
• The Visual Design Card Sort (de Guzman & Schiller, 2011) method is a modification of the Microsoft Product Reaction Card deck from their Desirability Toolkit. This technique allows users to choose three to five words that represent their interpretation of a visual design concept.
• The Visual Design Mad Libs method involves showing visual design alternatives to users and asking them to complete a structured sentence such as “This logo is <company name>, it is a <describe logo> because <explain why the design is appropriate for the company>”. This is the most structured technique.

We conducted three studies, using one, two or three of these techniques to determine which were most effective. In summary, we found that more structured methods produced more specific, actionable results for the visual design team. If you are interested in seeing the full poster, let me know.

Elsewhere around the conference, Hiroshi Ishii, of MIT Media Lab, delivered an excellent keynote address on the topic of “Defy Gravity: The Art of Tangible Bits”. Referencing some fascinating tangible UIs such as Ping Pong Plus Plus and the I/O Brush, he eloquently described how devices are like faucets of information. Just as water evaporates in physical landscapes, information is reused and curated in digital places. Ishii challenges the HCI community to focus on radical atoms of “future dynamic materials that are computationally reconfigurable”.

Ishii’s dream of interactive tangible interfaces meshes beautifully with Autodesk’s vision of democratizing design and engineering to help people imagine, design, and create a better world. With the advent of 3D printable circuitry there will be many powerful ways to create these technologies using Autodesk tools.

 Additionally, we attended sessions on

• Design, ergonomics, and usability
• Cross-cultural design
• Human aspects of information security, privacy, and trust

A session from Chi-Hsien Hsu et al looked at translating the PAD emotional state model into Chinese, for a cross-cultural understanding of pleasure, affect, and desirability. Autodesk as a global company is interested in this, and it’s a personal interest of mine.

Other sessions covered perceptions of usability and brand attributes. For example, a paper by Tareq Ahram et al compared competitor products using 13 sensibility words. This gave us inspiration to learn more about how to compare Autodesk offerings, such as Autodesk 360, to their competitors.  Similarly, Min-Xian Sun et al presented an interesting paper on similarity and dissimilarity pairs to study user perception.

Finally, we are very aware that users’ trust of cloud services, like Autodesk 360, rests soundly on strong privacy and high availability. These topics were addressed in several great sessions, like those led by Kathleen Hogan and John Bustard.

We continue to look to the academic community and practitioners of HCI to find the best practices to make Autodesk 360 compelling and engaging for design and engineering users. What are your thoughts on marrying user research and visual design? Have we done enough or too much? Leave us a comment below! 

Consumption Economics: Implications for UX

A book review & proposition
by Susan Wilhite

Our chance to change the world is arriving. We don’t even have to squint to see it.

Robert Fabricant of frog design has written of the emergence of user and product centricity and the decline of customer centricity. It’s no longer about the buyer and the sale.

Jared Spool of UIE is giving talks in advance of his forthcoming school for maker designers. He expounds on the necessary retreat from the retread of invention to the riskier moves toward innovation, all driven by design – both product/service and business model design. (Luke Wroblewski’s notes from the An Event Apart presentation, Seattle, April 2013).

Fortunately, there’s a backgrounder on the rise of UX in Wood, Hewlin and Lah’s book Consumption Economics: The New Rules of Tech (2011). UX people can zero in on Geoffrey Moore’s Forward through to Chapter 6.

Here’s the gist – Cap-ex vs. Op-ex

The tech business is shifting its adoption model that moves the risk of ROI from the buyer to the seller. Rather than landing a big sale up front (capital expenditure/CapEx), the seller is paid if and when the product is used (operational expenditure/OpEx). Put another way, payment is dependent on value seen by the buyer, so the product must appreciate, not depreciate, in value over time.

The product is no longer a thing. It is a dynamic resource.

Consistent and increased use depends on great (read: simple, clear…elegant) product design.  This concept synchs with a metered business model.

To wit: a taxi rider pays by the minute or the mile, or pays not at all if the taxi doesn’t arrive at the desired destination. Moreover, a rider is unlikely to tip or use the cab again if the trip was unpleasant. In taxis we pay for the duration of the service but we come back for the smile.

Metered product use is logged and paid for one microtransaction at a time. Users pay just for what they use – no major upfront costs. (For a new screed on making those microtransactions delightful, see Dan Saffer’s new book Microinteractions. 

In this way, steady use that may lead to mastery instills greater product loyalty and promotes adoption of add-ons and further services. Again, the seller is paid when the product or service returns value in the wild.

Still, the full power of this trend will transpire faster and smarter as UX practitioners understand and fully leverage this emerging opportunity.

Riding the wave

Until recent years responsibility for a customer’s successful adoption of a product rested mostly on the customer.

More recently we hear about nurturing the customer. In the CapEx days, any nurturing or massaging of the adoption fell to the seller’s “front line”: sales and consulting. These people held the customer’s hand (for a price) and sold add-ons as the customer/buyer endeavored to incorporate a technical product and extract the value of the initial and ownership costs.

The sales and consulting roles were often not effective for ensuring adoption success.

Now, with the OpEx model, the products themselves and the use models are designed to nurture the end users, prompting microtransactions and promoting advanced use.

UX Design is now driving. Along with the standard studies and iterative design, UX can craft and track intelligent, responsive designs that evolve organically as end users individually and collectively discover their most effective practices and techniques, within the product/service and as part of their total work ecosystem. Think of products and services acting like simulation games. Big Data and crowdsourcing inform this approach.

Which users should UX designers work with? If user nurturing is to stem from product/service design, it behooves us to partner with users experimenting with evolved processes and practices as they work within their domains. This alliance nourishes a grounded understanding of the larger work landscape and how products/services support users’ work.

One thing is clear – with product abandonment and adoption costs running closer to zero, the end user’s experience is more critical than ever in securing business or driving it away. UX researchers and designers can make the OpEx model come alive by infusing our unique philosophies, goals, and
practices into emerging business requirements.

Note

*Autodesk is a member of TSIA, the organization that produced this book.

Designing with the Color blind in Mind - Part 2

Tips for making color more accessible

by Mark Jamieson

Part 1 of this series provides information about the physiology of color blindness, and lists examples of situations that are challenging for color-blind people.

Part 2 provides tips to prevent color design oversights and help reduce accessibility barriers for color blind people.

• Choose colors that all color vision types can identify easily. In the design process, determine which hues and shade combinations are problematic in terms of their perception or differentiation, and avoid them. Refer to the available Web resources to help determine a color palette that is suitable for different types of color blindness, and to proof your color palette. Usually, if you increase the contrast between the brightness of colors, even when their hue and saturation are different, they can be discerned more easily. Note: See the resource list at the end of this article.
• Ensure that color is not the only differentiating cue. When designing for a Web site or the interface of a software application, use explicit text labels, shapes, line borders, or textures. Ensure that there is sufficient contrast between the text label and colors. Black text on a white background is prevalent because it provides good contrast for differentiation.

 
  Shapes and text labels help with the differentiation of items.

• Explicitly identify a color whenever its identification is useful and could be misinterpreted. For example, to ensure that a color can be accurately identified, regardless of the context:
  • Add the color name to a bar code tag for an item of clothing.
  • Ensure that a crayon contains the color on its label, and imprint the color name in the crayon wax in case the label is torn off.
  • Print the color of the plastic insulating covering of a wire every few inches along its length.
    
  • Use a tooltip to identify the color by name (or its RGB value).
    
• Add a color blind test to your regular set of accessibility checks for your product. Test the colors that play a critical role in any aspect of the design of your product. Consider involving one or more color blind testers, each with a different type of color blindness. In the early design process and during usability evaluations, ensure that your colors are distinguishable for their intended purpose in various planned contexts. The solution is often not as simple as substituting a color when a confusing color is critical to the color palette of a design. Sometimes it is necessary to evaluate various color palette options.  For software application and Web site designs, a number of utilities are available to help proofing how colors in the design appear to a person with color blindness. These utilities help to ensure that important colors are readily differentiated, and you can tweak any colors at issue. Minor color adjustments can make a huge difference in color perception for a color blind person.  Note:  See the resource list at the end of this article.
• Allow customization of the colors of user interface elements. Many software applications provide preferences for customizing the colors of various UI components, such as text, background color, and highlight color. This option provides the most flexibility for a color blind person. A few Web sites also provide the capability to change between a limited set of predefined color palettes to display their UI elements.

A poorly designed user interaction can unintentionally impede an otherwise efficient workflow. Likewise, the wrong color choice for elements of a design that you want users to distinguish greatly impedes accessibility for a color blind person. Make a difference for color blind people by considering these tips for your projects.

References

1. Adobe Creative Suite – Proofing Colors – Soft-proof for color blindness (Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator)
2. Designing for Color Blindness and Color Universal Design (CUD) – The Distinct Studios Journal.
3. Color Universal Design – Web site for the Color Universal Design Organization (mostly Japanese, but this link provides an overview in English).
4. Can Color-Blind Users See Your Site?  An article by Robert Hess for the Microsoft Development Network (MSDN), October 2000.
5. Color Oracle – A free color blindness simulator for Windows, Mac, and Linux.
6. Vischeck – A Web site that provides resources for simulating color-blind vision.
7. Visolve – A utility that transforms colors into discernible colors for the color vision deficient.
8. Designing for People with Partial Sight and Color Deficiencies  Aries Arditi, PhD. Guidelines for making effective color choices that work for nearly everyone.

 

 

Designing with the color blind in mind - Part 1

The limitations of color-blind vision

by Mark Jamieson

I’m color blind. When I divulge that information to people with normal color vision, they usually respond, “Really? Can you see any color? What color is this?”, as they point to something within close range.

This seemingly innocuous reaction indicates a general lack of understanding and empathy for people who live with this genetic-based vision disability. Color blind people experience many barriers and frustrations when using items that are designed for people with normal color vision.

In this two-part series:
Part 1 provides information about color blindness and its limitations.
Part 2 provides tips to reduce design oversights that affect people with color blindness.

Most of the people with color blindness (about 8% of males and 0.5% of females) can see color in a reduced color spectrum compared to people with normal color vision. Color vision deficient is a more accurate term than color blindness. Only in rare cases does color blindness mean seeing the world in black and white, or through a range of gray tones.

From a physiological perspective, our eyes contain photoreceptor cells that are named rods and cones, based on their shape. Rods number about 120 million per eye, and sense light and dark. Cones number six to seven million per eye, are less sensitive to light, and sense more color. Each of three cone types senses one of three primary colors: blue, green, or red. The information that these three cone types receive, when combined, is what our eyes perceive as color.

In people with a color vision deficiency, one or more cone types is malfunctioning or missing. As a result, they cannot distinguish as many color hues as someone with normal color vision.

The relative lighting (bright, dim, daylight, incandescent, fluorescent), background (light, dark, front lit, and backlit) and size of the color sample all play a role. A color blind person can generally see all primary color hues (red, green, and blue) at full strength (saturation). But the mixture of the deficient hues with other colors makes some colors challenging to identify, or indistinguishable from another.

Contrast is a huge factor in accurately differentiating between color shades. Color gradients (color ramps) are tricky too. One end of the ramp can begin in a hue that is perceptible, and end in a hue that is not. If text appears on top of the color ramp, it is sometimes not readable if the contrast between the elements is not high enough.

The two rows of colors in the following image provide examples of solid colors that can challenge some people with red-green color blindness.

It is relatively easy to differentiate (not identify) the five colors in either horizontal row, as there is good contrast and variation between the color hues.

To the red-green color blind, the colors in the vertical columns are almost identical, depending on the context in which they appear.

As the palette for a pie chart, these ten colors are problematic for most people with red-green color blindness, which is the most common color-vision deficiency.

Anything that involves identification of an item purely by its color can challenge a person with color-blindness. (Examples: matching clothing, plant foliage, signage, LED indicator lights on electrical devices, matching paint colors, colored pencils/crayons, Web sites, user-interface icons, color-coded information charts, board games, sunburn and rashes, insulation colors on electrical wires, maps, GPS color displays).

Color is often used as an element to simplify and differentiate items in the design of a product. Unconsidered color choices make the accessibility of a product more difficult and frustrating for a color blind person. We use color increasingly in the communication of information in many aspects of our society. We can easily reverse accessibility issues by designing products with colors that are perceptible by as many people as possible.

References

1. Colblindor – A Web site dedicated to color blindness, with many articles, and a free eBook.
2. We are colorblind – A Web site dedicated to making the Web a better place for the color blind.
3. Ishihara Color Blindness Test – The original Ishihara Color Blind test first published in 1917 as an online version.
4. Testing Color Vision – Advice for parents and teachers in dealing with color blind children.

What’s a Service Anyway? New Packaging for an Old Concept, or a Game Changer?

By Kursat Ozenc

Software designers and development teams have lost the luxury of working on a single platform or device. In today’s fast-paced environment, traditional waterfall processes and long product launch cycles are gone. Within recent years, major software companies—including Autodesk, Microsoft[1], and Adobe—have moved toward service-based offerings. These take the form of monthly subscriptions and product suites covering comprehensive workflows. Many factors account for this shift, including demand from the users, competition, and protection of profit margin. The overall zeitgeist in the software industry also plays a role, with game changers such as ‘the Cloud’, mobile, and social app ecologies.

Designers and product development teams are now in a tough position. They need to respond quicker to small product level challenges while also applying far-reaching, insightful thinking across platforms, devices, and workflows. Designers and product owners need a fresh perspective that can address both particular and systemic design challenges at the same time. That fresh perspective can be service design, which combines design, business, and development lenses. This two-part post will uncover service design, and make a humble suggestion for product teams to reconsider what a software ‘product’ might mean in this new era. We will also examine how designers might address mobile, social, and cloud-related design challenges more effectively.

Service design (SD) is an interdisciplinary field that aims to deliver service interfaces that are usable, useful, and desirable to the users, while also being efficient, effective, and distinctive to the suppliers (Mager, 2009.) In the past decade, interest in SD among designers has been noteworthy, including organizations such as www.service-design-network.org, as well as personal blogs such as www.servicedesigntools.org, designforservice.wordpress.com, and design4services.com. SD can be seen as a T-shape discipline that addresses both systems- and product-level challenges. Service designers approach a service problem as a drama with beginning, middle, and end phases. They also frame front and back stages of the business as design challenges. Finally, service designers bring a holistic perspective that considers both single touch-points, and the overall journey of a user engaged with the service.

Sample coffee shop service with journey map and touch points

SD methods are real mash-ups, taking best practices from different design disciplines including interaction, graphic, and industrial design. The most distinctive methods, however, are mapping and enactment. Mapping of journeys, relationships, and stakeholders allows exploration of system level interactions, whereas enactment methods such as experience prototyping and role enactment reveal the product level interactions and service moments.

In characterizing service design thinking, Stickdorn suggests user-centeredness, co-creation, sequencing, evidencing, and being holistic as the five principles of the discipline. Among these principles, sequencing means designing all the steps that a user might take while using the service, which can be developed through using journey maps, role-enactments, and scripts. Evidencing means defining the intangible delivery of the service through offerings, such as a coffee-latte for a coffee shop. Engine, a service design consultancy, similarly put value, systems, journeys, people, and propositions as the five fundamentals of service design. Journeys are similar to sequencing: the path that the user takes to form her experience. Proposition is the distinctiveness and desirability that a service can offer to the user, such as a preference for coffee shop A over B.

In software design, it’s easy to relate current design practices to user-centeredness. What user-centeredness means in our hyper-connected world is another story. In parallel with advancements in computation, the way people access, create, and use information has changed dramatically. These changes affect not only people’s tools and resources, but also their habits around technology use. People become real jugglers, wearing many hats at once, curating their product wardrobes based on emerging needs and desires. One workflow per product is not the case anymore. To unlock this dynamic challenge, other principles become handy, mapping peoples’ prospective journeys and creating offerings, value, and propositions accordingly.

The strength of SD lies in its ability to capture both the system-level and product-level challenges. Aforementioned principles blend both abstract, intangible wholes and concrete, tangible parts of a service. The next post will take these principles and apply them as lenses to inform the design of software. Situating service design in a cloud-computing and cross-platform SaaS context will demonstrate how the manifestations of these principles can inform the design endeavor.

---

[1]
http://www.kuow.org/post/microsoft-launches-new-office-subscription-service

 

Out the Window at UPA

By John Schrag 

I’m just outside of Las Vegas, Nevada this week, at the annual conference of the Usability Professionals Association. While eating breakfast, I looked out the window of the M Resort and saw that the conference name was spelled wrong on the exterior marquee – instead of “UPA”, it said “UXPA”. What did this mean?

Sure enough, right after breakfast the announcement was made official: the UPA is renaming itself to the User Experience Professionals Association (UXPA), and is starting the process of remaking itself to better fit this new name. Word went out immediately through Twitter, and within a few minutes responses were coming back from around the world, ranging from the delighted to the irritated.

Personally, I thought the name change was well past time. Most of the industry has long realized that paying attention to usability is not enough. The direct usability of your product or service is only one of many touchpoints that your clients and customers have with your business. Those of us who design products or services tend to think of the sales department or the web division or the customer support group as being separate from ourselves. But as far as customers are concerned, a business has a single face. You can provide a really easy-to-use product, but if your purchase process is painful, you’re not going to be thought of as a company that’s easy to do business with.

In an Ignite session today about social media, the question was raised: are you where your customers are? If your customers are talking about you on Twitter, are you there listening? Better yet, are you responding? A customer who gets a response to a problem posted on Twitter sees that response as a part of the overall experience of dealing with your business. Your lack of response will be seen the same way. Listening and responding to the vast social media landscape can be a daunting idea, raising all kinds of issues about scalability and setting expectations. But these are exactly the sort of business questions companies need to be thinking about nowadays.

Usability can’t be isolated from the rest of User Experience. We all need to look at the bigger picture. So I, for one, applaud the UPA for staking out a new direction. Now let’s see if they – we – can follow through.

 

Collaborative Design

by John Schrag

A while ago, I posted an article (Values in Software Design Practice) describing what values my co-workers and I believe contribute to a healthy software design practice. At that time, I promised to go into more details on the individual items of that list. This posting describes why we value Collaborative Design over Design by Referendum or Design by Fiat.

Just to be clear, I want to first define what I mean by these approaches.

Design by Fiat* means that one person makes all the decisions. This is how many people imagine design works – at the core of this idea are the mythic Great Designers, those big names that dominate Fashion, or Automotive, or Architectural Design. Great ideas just pour out of them – or so people think. Sometimes these designers think so themselves, which can be a real problem.

I’ve worked at companies where design proceeds as if everyone were a Great Designer. A problem is identified, a feature is decided on, a designer writes a design document which gets tossed to development to build. There is no review (or only cursory review), and little or no usability testing. That’s a lot of faith to put into one person’s best guess.

Even worse, in real life the person making the design decisions is sometimes not a designer at all. It can be a product manager who identifies solutions rather than problems to his design staff; or a developer who has her own vision and (as a developer) the means to get what she wants implemented over the protests of the designer. But no matter who is giving the orders, the result tends to be a design that works really well – for that one person. Such designs are often neat and clever, but tend to not be resilient to changes in use or context. They can miss business concerns (which the product manager would know about), quality and cross-product issues (which QA might be aware of), technical constraints (known only to the engineers) or important but infrequent use cases (that expert users would never miss).

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the dreaded Design by Referendum (also called Design by Committee). In this system, a team of people must all agree to every design decision. While this solves the problem of insufficient input, Design by Referendum does not recognize the unique skills for elicitation, organization and synthesis that a good HCI designer can bring to the table.

Any group activity involves politics, and group-design is no exception. Decisions start getting made on the basis of fairness, of who-suggested-what, and did-everyone-get-something-they-want. You can often recognize group designs, because they tend to include a hodge-podge of features that lack unifying principles. And simple design is out of the question.

I have seen these two design approaches pitted against each other in arguments -- my boss doesn’t listen to me (the great designer) so instead we end up with some awful thing that was designed by committee!

But I think the best design is found in the middle ground, in what we call Collaborative Design. But how is that different?

I like to say that design is like breathing. You have to inhale before you can exhale. And you don’t stop at one breath – you have to keep breathing in and out to sustain yourself. Designers ‘inhale’ when they connect with the world; when they observe, listen, research, absorb information, and hear what others have to say. Designers ‘exhale’ when they communicate their thoughts and designs to others.

It’s not an accident that the word “inspiration” literally means “inhaling”.

Collaborative Design respects the role of the designer to gather, organize, and synthesize information; then to create or modify things based on this information. But it also respects the expertise of others; the reactions and knowledge of all the stakeholders are crucial to get a design from good to great. But that doesn’t mean we ask stakeholders other than the designer to design.

A few years ago my colleague Ian Hooper and I taught a one-day workshop on design methodologies at UPA. As part of our own preparation, we looked at how design was conducted in many different fields, and we kept finding the same idea – a loop of first gathering information, then evaluating and synthesizing (and dreaming!), followed by creating and communicating – then repeating this loop until done. Many disciplines have the idea of the “design review”, which goes by many names (“pin-up”, “charrette”, etc.) Some of these have are loosely defined; others have long-established methodologies.

A good design review starts with everyone agreeing to the common goal of helping improve the design. Then the designer presents the problem background and walks all the stakeholders through the design details. After that, the other stakeholders do their part; they ask questions, present what-if scenarios, and make suggestions for improvement. It is now the designer’s job to listen, to dig deeper into the scenarios and suggestions to make sure that all the reasons behind them are understood. Importantly, the designer doesn’t have to react to any of the feedback; he or she just needs to listen and absorb it. Multiple conflicting suggestions for improvement can be entertained at the same time, because no decisions are being made yet. When the exploration is done, the design review is over, and the designer can stop ‘inhaling’.

It’s time for the designer to reflect and synthesize what he or she has learned into an updated design. This doesn’t necessarily mean following particular suggestions (even when they come from the boss), but rather making changes that demonstrate you understood the reasoning behind the suggestion. Collaborative design is about respecting and utilizing everyone’s expertise, without losing the heart of design.

(Of course, you still need to validate your design by prototyping and usability testing… but that’s another article.)

Collaborative design, under whatever process name, is a very old idea, but still a good one. Like breathing. So make sure you always inhale --- you have to take a deep breath before you can sing.

*“Fiat” is from the Latin for “let it be done”, and has nothing to do with the Italian car company known for its beautiful designs.

Design Values: Ease of Use over Ease of Coding

by Ian Hooper

This is a follow-up article to John Schrag’s post on Design Values. The original post described the values we believe contribute to a healthy software design practice. This post looks deeper into the importance of supporting Ease of Use over Ease of Coding.

In my experience at other companies, I have seen that it is common practice to measure productivity in terms of the speed with which a new product or service can be brought to market. In practical terms this means that the faster a developer can complete a functional requirement, the better their efficiency. This provides a strong incentive for all involved in software development to streamline the process as much as possible. Under the constant pressure of tight deadlines, usability is seen as a threat to this "productivity," and as such in situations where the choice between ease of use and ease of coding is uncertain, ease of coding wins out.

However, actual studies have shown again and again how failure to properly consider the user experience can impact the bottom line. For example:

• An insurance company invested $3 million in an application to be used by independent agents to support them in selling this company’s products. However, agents simply refused to use the application, because the interface was "unlearnable and unusable."
• A financial services company had to scrap an application it had developed, when, shortly before implementation, developers doing a User Acceptance test found a fatal flaw in their assumptions about how data would be entered. By this time, it was too late to change the underlying structure, and the application never implemented.

The Importance of Designing Usable Systems, Dray & Associates © 1995 Association for Computing Machinery, Inc

Finding the right balance between efficient programming solutions and a positive user experience is where the challenge lies. There will be many times where these two goals will not come into conflict. When they do, embracing the design value of ease of use over ease of coding can help to resolve the tension between these two worthy principles.

Sometimes it is not immediately apparent which approach will result in the optimal solution for the users. To put it another way, it is not always clear where your efforts as a designer and user advocate will be most valuable. That is where early and iterative design can help identify the areas that will need extra attention or a different programming approach. Try doing some contextual task analysis or running a charrette as a quick way to rapidly spot the areas where the standard coding approach may not be sufficient. After that you can explore solutions by using any of the tools familiar to interaction designers such as card sorting, heuristic evaluation, personas, usability testing, use case scenarios and more.

An example of where we chose ease of use over ease of coding is in a recent product I was working on where we wanted to adopt a particular mode of navigation. The existing navigation scheme was unfamiliar to our target users and initial usability tests showed that this created a barrier to learning. We decided that we could match the navigation style used in Autodesk Revit, a program that our target users would be using. The application was modified to use the middle mouse button to pan the camera when pressed, or orbit the camera when pressed along with the Shift key. We made the new version of our application available to a select few in our target group. Having just implemented Revit-style navigation I was surprised to hear our users say “It’s too bad they don’t just use the same navigation as Revit”!??!

It turns out that our application only registered keystrokes sequentially – it could not detect simultaneous keys. The programmer set the system to orbit when the middle mouse button was pressed following the Shift key. This generally worked, provided you pressed the Shift key first, but if you just hold the mouse button down and toggle between Shift down and Shift up, our system would not recognize the change. This was a common behavior for many Revit users, and so for them, the navigation controls did not appear to be working.

Changing the system to allow for simultaneous keystrokes meant major changes to the application messaging system. The effort was significant, but failure to do this would have meant that our application would not have benefitted from the prior learning they had done on Revit. It may seem funny then that we were pleased with our next test release when nobody commented on the navigation at all. It just worked exactly as they expected.

In the end, we put the effort on the software and not on our users. By choosing ease of use over ease of coding we achieved our goals and created an experience that was natural and pleasing for our customers.

Deconstructing 'done': Achieving results over writing reports

by Desirée Sy

John Schrag wrote earlier about Design Values, and others have expanded on some of these ideas. This follow-up post looks at why we designers value Achieving Results over Writing Reports.

This isn’t so much a duality as it is two points on the continuum of design doneness. Writing reports is a part of what we do as designers, but it’s not an end to itself—just as an architect’s job isn’t complete when the blueprints are finalized. The exciting part is realizing that just as an architect’s job doesn’t start when the blueprints are being drafted, there is far more to an interaction designer’s job than writing specifications.

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/170/371670597_f0d01ddf53.jpg)

What can we do as designers to achieve results that are better—faster, more vivid, more malleable, more effective—than pounding out a 279-page specification?

Is there a better way?

Let’s conduct some thought experiments with a few typical design activities and their deliverables.

Usability test

You’re conducting a usability test on a low-fidelity prototype, and the design idea fails to solve the primary design criteria set for it. What do you do to get this problem fixed?

1. During a design review session, you present the problem as part of the data in a PowerPoint scatter plot.
2. Pull some ideas out of an email thread with the whole team, after sending a link to your report of the whole test series.
3. Make changes to the paper prototype, in consultation with the developer who observed the session, and see if the next user can complete the task.

Answer (c) allows the team to move through design iterations more rapidly than writing comprehensive usability test reports and then reacting to those results allows. This also illustrates one of the concepts underlying the rapid iterative testing and evaluation (RITE) usability test methodology. Through personal experience, I can say that developers are more engaged and have a more complete understanding of underlying problems (rather than your proposed solution) when they participate in rapid design iterations.

Site visit

You're at a customer site, watching users pushing real data through the latest release of the software. You identify a critical issue that has an impact on the version currently in development. How do you convey this problem back to the team?

1. Three weeks later, as part of the “Problems” section of a field visit report that also incorporates data from the next two weeks of visits.
2. A month later, as part of a PowerPoint presentation to the team about all the field visits.
3. The next day, as an upload via FTP of a recording of a re-creation of the workflow with the current build version on your laptop with a voice-over describing the issue, supplemented by an example of the customer data.

The pros of producing a stream of “re-created highlights” for your team as the site visits progress are that you are highlighting the most important issues for the team (and therefore, for yourself) in a timely way, and you are keeping everyone engaged in the narrative of data collection for the full 2 weeks. Also, adding customer data provides context and data-driven requirements, helping the whole team to frame the problem more accurately.

The cons of such informal reporting are that you are paraphrasing the problem, and there is some loss in translation when you are using (for example) a different version of the software to demonstrate the problem. Also, there are going to be some issues that are only revealed as part of a pattern of observations over time.

And yet…haven’t we all been at a site where we saw one instance of a critical problem that doesn’t require another example for us to know that it needs addressing? Shouldn’t we try to find more timely (and less boring) ways to engage team members to fix these than by writing a report and insisting everyone read it and then do the right thing?

Convey UI design

You’ve finished part of a larger design and the low-fidelity prototype met all the design criteria in usability testing. The next step is to explain the design and the user experience acceptance criteria so that development can build it, and QA can test it. Which of these actions will most effectively help the team build the product?

1. Get a head start on section XXVI.34.ii (b) of the specification, which won’t be distributed until the whole design is complete.
2. Conduct a detailed design walkthrough of the entire UI design for developers, QA, and technical writers. Answer questions about the design solution, and capture the minutes of the meeting.
3. Write a short design brief for the part of the design that’s done, and link a series of these together later in a higher-level document.
4. Demo the smaller design piece using the final version of the low-fidelity prototype to complete a few common and critical tasks for developers, QA, and technical writers. Answer questions about the design problem. Capture the meeting, including the questions and answers, in brief design history notes. Keep a running series of these notes for all the design pieces.

I’ve found that a combination of (c) and (d) work much more effectively than (a) and (b). What makes the continuous (vs. complete) demonstration of workflow (vs. UI walkthrough) approach more effective is:

• It breaks the implementation down into more manageable, understandable pieces of work.
• It emphasizes the desired workflow as the outcome, rather than the minutia of the design, except where the visual or interaction design details have an important effect on the workflow.
Therefore, it puts the UI elements in the context of the user’s work and tasks for the whole team.
• It helps you understand where you failed to communicate design details to other team members, so that you can fix the design brief. Inevitably, when the team has a better understanding of the problem that you’re solving, someone improves your design.
• Most importantly, you’ve distributed the responsibility for achieving results to the entire team.

Making things happen

Designers are often frustrated because even after doing all the “right” design activities, and then distributing research reports, usability test reports, wireframes, and specifications, somehow the “right” solutions don’t end up in the product.

We’ve sometimes reacted by trying to fix the reports or enforce their authority — by forcing sign-offs; by presenting reports instead of getting team members to read them; by holding up coding until documents are complete; and in the case of specifications, by pushing more and more detail into more and more pages.

These fixes are symptoms of mistrust. Forcing compliance to read or act on reports is a breakdown of trust that the findings aren’t being taken seriously. Adding more content to reports is a breakdown of trust in the validity or completeness of the findings. I think most of us can think of times when doing either of these things hasn’t resulted in the “right” result, even though collectively, the team knew better.

Both approaches are based on the myth that a designer uncovers the user’s problems and creates the One True Solution, and then developers implement that vision (either successfully, or incompletely).

I think that this is the wrong way to infuse design thinking into products. Instead of forcing “their” solution on a team, designers should get as many team members as possible to understand users’ problems, and then get everyone engaged in solving those issues. Ultimately, the likelihood of getting results into a product increases exponentially for each team member who is committed to solving problems and owning the solution. Sometimes, writing reports isn’t the best way to do this.

Design Values: Complete Workflows over Long Feature Lists

by Lynn Miller on January 21, 2010

This is a follow-up article to John Schrag’s post on Design Values. The original post described the values we believe contribute to a healthy software design practice.  This post looks deeper into why we value Complete Workflows over Long Feature Lists.

As with the proceeding posts, stating that valuing complete workflows over long feature lists does not mean that we are against long feature lists. If you can get a long feature list added to a product and still maintain complete workflows – go for it!

However, implementing a long list of disjoint and disparate features does not serve the end-users well. Even implementing a list of coherent features is unacceptable if the final result doesn’t support a complete workflow. As in the image below, constructing walls and a door doesn’t make a livable house if there is no roof. I would think potential end-users of these houses would have traded off the windows-feature to get the roof-feature implemented.

Photographer: David Goldblatt
Incomplete houses, part of a stalled municipal development of 1000 houses.
Lady Grey, Eastern Cape, 5 August 2006

Long feature lists often result from gathering customers' proposed solutions. The customer requests, “I want a print menu” (a solution), instead of “I need to share my work” (a problem). But as Theodore Levitt of the Harvard Business School said, "People don't want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole."  If you implement features without understanding what the customer really wants, then you can end up with multiple solutions for the same problem, with none of them quite succeeding.

To get a complete workflow you need to understand what your customers end goal is. From this you can either design a complete solution that gets the user to where they want to go or you can identify the gaps that need to be addressed in your current solution.

The Kodak EasyShare digital cameras are a good example of understanding what users are trying to accomplish and providing a complete solution. Kodak recognized that their user’s end goal wasn’t to take pictures – but to share pictures. Their solution was to create an inexpensive digital camera that people could slip into a cradle, click a button, and share photos effortlessly through email. Kodak became the market share leader because of this.

Understanding your customers end goal isn’t very difficult. Talk to your customers about why they are asking for a certain feature, instead of blindly accepting the solution they propose. (Note: Their solution may turn out to the dead-on, but you are still better off if you know the reasoning behind adding the feature.) Try the 5 Whys technique – ask "Why?" until you get to the true cause of a particular situation or problem. Then you know that you are addressing the right issue – the one that will make your customers happy and won’t waste your development resources.