- more on findability

- principles of universal design

- interface design – how to improve user experiences and make money by designing better rich internet applications and interfaces for everyday products. Example? I just used my Rogers cable guide and saw they changed their interface. Now it’s a lot faster and easier to turn on Treehouse On Demand movies. In 5 seconds I was able to turn the next episode of Dora on for my sons to watch so I could come back to this blog and keep writing. I will pay for Rogers above others purely because their interface is that fast and easy for me to use. Customer inertia means I will only switch to another provider if the time it takes me to use their interface makes me feel like it’s worth learning even though it takes an extra 10 minutes out of my day, because I have toddlers and this blog that need my attention right now.

If your product gets in my eyesight and proves I can learn it fast enough that it’d be worth setup time to switch, I would. If your interface doesn’t quickly and easily prove to me I can use your service just as fast and get other benefits, I won’t switch. Ever.

Otherwise I am working on launching a new blog at JuicyWebDesign. This new site will focus on applying practical tips of user experience design with CSS, HTML, JavaScript, and newer technologies like Ajax, without losing usability and accessibility. A popular term for this is “bulletproof web design”. Websites have a long way to go on improving flexibility and preventing problems caused by irresponsible use of CSS, JavaScript, Ajax, and more. I’m also going to be talking about designing rich internet application interfaces in AIR, Flex, Silverlight, etc. I hope you will check it out, if you work on the web, it’ll be invaluable.

I was surprised when in a group with several people I considered roughly my age and older that the majority felt Facebook, Twitter, and other similar online tools were at best a waste of time. To me these are a way of life – instinctive and natural, and part of my day. I’m as likely to check Twitter first thing in the morning as I am to brush my teeth or wash my face. That is apparently a very Generation Y point of view.

I fit into Generation X at the end, or Generation Y at the beginning, depending which way you look at it. Different sources will place Generation Y born from 1976-1995 or 1982-2001, and I was born in 1980. A great friend who was only about four years older than myself and I used to discuss where the gap was between us; where the generational difference played out or went unrecognized. He insisted even those few years could make a difference in so many ways. For instance, even the television shows he grew up with were different then what I knew well. Still, I also was exposed to my mom and dad’s favourite shows such as The Waltons and Little House on the Prairie, so in a way, this shifted my perspective as well from others in my age group.

In Joshua Porter’s Designing for the Social Web, he begins by quoting Douglas Adams, in an imagined conversation between a future child and teacher. Through doing so, he illustrates how before television, people were engaged in interactive entertainment – sports, theater, music. And now, as the web grows and changes, people are again beginning to make interactive entertainment a very important element of their lives. Are tools such as Facebook and Twitter a waste of time? Or are they simply more interactive entertainment finally filling the gap that television has left in our lives?

I’m not sure it matters to me whether my friends use these tools. I know most of the friends I met offline first do not and refuse to. And yet I’ve made a wealth of wonderful online friends who do use them. I have made connections for networking and being mentored that have entirely changed my perspective and path. I don’t think it matters so much whether someone uses Facebook or not, but as a designer first, I think there’s value in trying it, if only to see what Generation Y sees. If you are too busy thinking yourself too good for such silly websites, perhaps you are too blind to the real meaning they have for society now, particularly in Generation Y. It would be a waste to ignore this demographic.

Is that true though?

I choose positions based on opportunities and adding to my skill set, not because I consider myself a master at them already. In short, I intentionally go broad rather than deep. It has certainly made my career journey longer than I would’ve liked in the beginning. Then again, when I started out I wanted to be a veterinarian.

Even when I came to the IT world, I first earned a diploma in computer programming. I had done web development and design already, and thought I could love code. I’ve done design, I’ve done development, and I’ve done training. More recently I’ve been writing. For me it’s not whether things are broad or deep, its finding what I’m passionate about.

If I’m not ignited by what I can do and how I can help, I’m not giving 100% of me to anything. Sure, I could lope along and get the job done, but I’m not the type to sit still and satisfied with just satisfying requirements. That requires keeping broad familiarity and willingness to flexibly do whatever it takes. It’s not that I haven’t found something I like, it’s that I like it all. I see it all as a part of a holistic part of real quality user experience. The features that are coded aren’t going to get used if the interface is impossible to use. That gorgeous site won’t get visited if the content stinks and the important details are difficult to find.

User experience design is a great example where you have to stay broad, not deep. By having a basic understanding of trends and technologies as well as marketing, findability, making money but also meeting people’s needs and keeping up with what excites them, you meet the needs of both the company and your customers. Here information architecture, technical communication, interface design, and social trends such as social and online marketing, come together. Here the most important element is, in my opinion, a passion to help users to get there, and ensure companies make it happen. That necessitates a broad view, not a deep one.

Then again, I have to wonder, am I just not realizing that I’m “not really good at anything”? The truth is, I can’t specialize as deeply in some of the things I am very interested in. I admire developers, yet I know I can’t dedicate the time and effort needed to become an excellent programmer. There are technical communicators who I consider geniuses, and yet know I cannot compete with since I don’t give all of me to that field either. I can’t give 100% to interface design, information architecture, technical writing, or anything else, because I spread myself over all of these things.

As the user experience design field grows and changes, many are specializing in some of the integral elements, whether they focus on information architecture and good content, or interface design and graphics. Still, even if you carry the role of information architect (IA), you probably are aware of usability issues and how designs can be optimized to make that information findable. The interface designer in turn makes beautiful things, but ensures they meet business objectives and share necessary content as well.

Maybe the real answer is “go deep… but not TOO deep.”

Maybe I should finally admit I need to go deep, and carry a periscope just so I can keep an eye above water.

This business of choosing opportunities I know will challenge me isn’t always all its cracked up to be.

1. All the options have similar functionality, and many have equal feature sets. In short, most of them will do the things I need. That said, I work alone and as an amateur, so the functions they all have meet my needs now, even if I’d like to use some higher end stuff later on a professional basis. If this was all that mattered, I would’ve chosen the free one immediately.

2. Screenshots. My husband is going to roll his eyes at this. Compare screenshots. MindManager uses an Office 2007 like ribbon interface, with a wealth of flags, markers, symbols, and creative drawing options. If I didn’t want to be able to easily use flags and other icons as well as actually enjoy my interface, I’d still be scribbling on a notepad.

This is a mindmapping program – it needs to let me be creative, and it needs to excite my mind with what I can achieve using it. Don’t give me some ugly interface, I want something sexy and exciting. I don’t want just functional, I want something that makes my mindmaps impressive and worth sharing. MindManager works better because it opens creative possibilities and stretches my ideas of what I can do with the software. I’m instantly thinking about what flags and icons I can use to add meaning, and how I can use colour schemes, different fonts, shapes, lines, and so forth, to communicate my thoughts creatively and effectively. I’m a designer, I don’t want to be restricted to black, white, and fugly.

3. The demo experience. MindJet offers a free demo, you email them to get access. Most people don’t like giving their email out but by doing so, I’ve gotten an awesome demo. And how did MindJet make me feel good about giving them my address? They immediately emailed me, thanked me, told me about the demo, and pointed me to tutorials and tips on how to get started. Immediately I knew I was valuable and I could easily get using this software. I don’t want it thrown at me and then to be ignored – no sales associate in a store would ignore me while I was looking at their goods. Why do software vendors do it? I want someone who says “good morning, how are you today? let me know if I can do anything at all for you”.

4. On Twitter I must’ve mentioned MindManager and they must’ve had someone searching Tweets for people talking about their software. Immediately I got a personal message from someone saying, quite literally what I mentioned above, “let me know if I can do anything at all for you”. I am tired of just being sold a product – I want good service. I grew up with a father who provided top-notch, excellent, quality service to everyone who came into his store, because it was the only right way to do it. Period. If you can’t make the effort to smile and say “good day, how can I help you”, don’t waste my time. If money means more to you then my happiness, I’ll look elsewhere.

5. Instructional materials. The first thing I was offered when I opened MindManager was interactive tutorials and videos to get started, see how it’s done, and make my own demo mindmap. Instantly I was enthralled, excited, and inspired by how easily and quickly I could work in this software. If your software makes me think I’m going to need hours to figure it out, I’m going to find someone like MindJet who understands I’m not going to touch dusty old reference manuals or click around trying to find the right menu item. Especially when it’s something like mindmapping, and is therefore not instinctive or obvious to the everyday user.

Also, I don’t need to be told to click a button, I need to shown what the button does for me. I’ve been using Windows for a long time, and “click the Ok button” is not an instruction I need.

6. Check the website – Mindjet: MindManager 8. See how quickly you spot the key differentiators? The site is clean, crisp, and bold, yet all the interface elements get out of the way as you read through. The bits that make this software more powerful then others are clearly stated, and an interactive example of the mindmap you can do in their software is the first thing you see. If that doesn’t inspire your creativity and make you want to dive in and start using their software, I don’t know what else could.

In Short…

It all goes back to flow, “the mental state of operation in which the person is fully immersed in what he or she is doing by a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity”. Here we have software that is in the best position to combine great functions with creative design possibilities – because, after all, that’s what mindmapping is all about – taking creativity and making it usable, effective, and organized, then saving and sharing it. MindJet exemplifies the purpose of their software in their service. Their software gets the functionality right, but so do many others.

The difference here is in the user experience. They smoke the competition in my eyes because they went so far above and beyond requirements. I expect software to meet my needs and provide great functionality, and all of the options do. But I want to know what sofware does for me, I want it to empower me to reach my goals, and I want to see how fast I can make it happen. It couldn’t be any clearer then what I get through getting a trial version of MindManager, using their interactive tutorials, and visiting their website.

Today I received notices about a few upcoming webinars relating to user experience design. The first relates to graphic design principles, and seemed to be on a rather general overview level. However, the second and third were through Rosenfeld Media and are much more exciting to me.

The first two “Future Practice Webinars” offered are Modern Web Form Design by Luke Wroblewski, and Using Mental Models For Tactics and Strategy by Indi Young. Each cost the same as the first webinar I mentioned above, but cover user experience design in deep detail, and include a copy of the speakers book in the webinar cost, both in print and digital format. Not one or the other. Both! So now excuse me as I try to find change in my couch cushions so I can join these webinars.

My spouse is a developer and we have this discussion quite often actually. He can recite the deepest details of coding and architecting software as if it’s a mysterious, ancient language (I like to compare it to Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics myself). I have no problem saying he is a genius. He understands details I can’t possibly hope to grasp, and he has no interest in interface design. While I’ve tried to explain to him how form improves function, and how flow makes people more creative and allows them to actually enjoy software, thereby making the software more functional for the user, he’s just not interested. Now we’ve had the discussion long enough that I can mouth the words “form AND function” across a crowded room just to see the face he makes.

Here’s my radical idea, which has lead to a lot less argument in my house, I must add – let developers develop. And hey, let’s leave the marketers to do the marketing too. Let’s just accept that these team members are geniuses at what they do, and in fact, should not have to worry about interface design. Do you think my husband cares whether his menu is easy to use? I can tell you, he has no time nor interest in deciding how to effectively list menu items or label form elements. He has his head so far up the code that drives functionality, he does not and cannot be concerned with how it looks too.

No, Really, I Like Geeks

Don’t get me wrong here. Many of my friends are developers, and I admire them quite a bit. I actually started as one myself, back in college, and some of my best and longest friends are programming geniuses. As I said too, my husband is a programmer. So, I am not in any way trying to knock them when I say they don’t and shouldn’t be concerned with interface design.

Let the developers write the code. They make software functional.

Let the marketing team balance ROI and marketing. They sell the software to customers.

UX designers are the guys who stand in between. They talk to the developers, they talk to the marketing team, and most importantly, they talk to users.

Whereas developers focus on function, and marketing focuses on actually marketing the products, UX designers focus on user needs. This is becoming vitally important as competition arises and becomes so easily accessible through the internet. “Google” has become a verb for people, and they will “just Google it” if your product doesn’t give them a solution that is not just usable but nice to use.

There’s That Doctor Example Again

Carrying on the doctor example from the previous entry, user experience designers diagnose symptoms. When John Smith complains of stomach pains, your UX designer is the doctor.  The good doctor asks, “Well, John, can you tell me when the pain starts”, and does two things.

First, the doctor observes John’s behaviour and draws out exactly what John is doing when the problem arises, and how the pain prevents John from doing it. How often does John experience this pain, and does it prevent him from completing tasks? Rather than expecting John to spit out exactly the solution he needs (an appendectomy, at least according to John), the doctor makes notes and investigates how John actually behaves. He learns what John wants to do, and how exactly the pain prevents that from happening.

Second, the doctor knows John is not aware of the specific pain characteristics that suggest appendicitis. John can tell him it hurts, but the doctor finds out where in the body, when, and how. The doctor ideally has the good communication skills to make John feel comfortable and help him explain exactly how and when the pain hits. And the doctor also knows the pattern that these pain symptoms would match if it was appendicitis, along with different solutions to end John’s pain. The doctor is silently comparing the pain characteristics to the appendicitis pattern, and considering other illness patterns that would match as well. Then he can later consider from his library of prescription and surgery options which meet the needs.

Why are medications offered by prescription? Because people know that doctors have a better understanding of symptoms and access to a wider repository of information as to when symptoms match illnesses, and which prescription or surgery could solve the problem.

But We Don’t Close The Office To Go Golfing

Accordingly, UX designers are trained to observe users, draw out their needs and tasks, and match them against existing understanding of interface designs and usable components. Users are not expected to know whether pyramid navigation, breadcrumbs, or modal panels will allow them to get the job done, just as they are not expected to take their own appendix out.

UX designers do have a broad familiarity with various subjects – they may be more like your general practitioner or family doctor then a specialist. They don’t perform brain surgery, nor do they write code. They may not develop and test medications, nor do they dive deep into marketing metrics. But they have a broad understanding of graphics design principles, information architecture, human-computer interaction, how the brain works and how people figure things out. They understand the need for return on investment (ROI), and probably have a basic idea what functions are possible with the company’s favourite programming environment.

UX designers often have a library of different interface patterns – navigation types, methods to help people find their way in software – and a deep understanding of how people actually DO find their way or navigate. They’re good communicators, and good at quickly plugging symptoms to design pattern. General doctors can prescribe medications, whereas UX designers can often actually bring the design patterns to life using CSS, HTML, JavaScript, Ajax, and Dojo, or .Net, Java, JSP, and so forth. They may not be coding geniuses, but they have to be aware of what’s out there and what it can do, just like your general doctor needs to know about surgical options and prescriptions, even if they don’t actually spend their day in surgery or the lab.

So let’s allow the developers/surgeons to focus on their work, and the marketers/scientists do their job too. They are geniuses, and their work is invaluable. That said, don’t expect John Smith to go directly to the surgeon when he has stomach pains. Instead, allow your UX designer to help John find the perfect solution.

I’m reading About Face by Alan Cooper, and Cooper writes,

If we design and construct products in such a way that the people who use them achieve their goals, these people will be satisfied, effective, and happy and will gladly pay for the products and recommend that others do the same. Assuming that this can be achieved in a cost-effective manner, it will translate into business success.

What I don’t understand is why companies are just starting to buy into this idea. As Cooper goes on to say, isn’t this quite obvious? The marketers and analysts gather data on buy-in and features, and the developers focus on making it happen within whatever environment they have to. Somebody is looking at ROI and features, and somebody is looking at coding functionality.

But who’s looking at translating customer needs effectively?

The truth is, people often don’t know exactly how they want software to allow them to complete a task. They recognize how the existing software makes them work around what they want, and they understand vague ideas like “make it easy to use”, but they may not be able to translate that into interface design. And why should they? Would a plumber expect a customer to effectively solve a problem in the pipes when the toilet overflows?

Cooper goes on to describe how this is like a Dr doing an appendectomy on a patient who says “oh Dr, I have a stomach ache, I need my appendix removed”. If your expecting your users to tell you how to design your software to meet their needs, you are asking too much of them.

If you are expecting your users to modify how they cognitively understand and use your navigation menus, you will sink yourself. Oh sure, that worked with your legacy software, designed by and for high end engineers and developers. It worked when you had no competition. But in an age where people are growing up in front of a computer, taught to use Google before being taught grammar, and have at least one if not more computers at home from childhood?

People now understand that they are smart enough to use computers, and when it doesn’t work the way they expect, it’s the software’s fault. Even more importantly, they’ve learned they need only Google it to find an easier solution. With web interfaces and rich internet applications, they need not even download files. They open a browser window and find your competitor, who just designed a great interface online, and does it better, easier, and faster than you.

If you don’t see why User Experience Designers are needed, you will when your competition wipes you out.

But I think she was right after all.

Sure the theory is sound, and it is absolutely a great read about human behaviour and how to match that behaviour effectively. In terms of studying cognition, Norman’s book cannot be denied as a classic. The concepts could be applicable anywhere, and I bet it’s a great text for university studies.

But for me? In the world of web design and technical documentation for software? The examples from engineering are so far removed, and the theory is so distant from what I want to do, that there are more modern books worth reading first.

I’ve come home with print versions of Designing The Moment by Hoekman, and Designing For The Social Web by Porter, both published by New Riders. Recently I saw someone point out that user experience design will be only taken seriously when those who do it actually have done the work. The person explained that just as in other disciplines, the theory needs to be applied to be proven as worthwhile. Actually integrating UX concepts – both within web sites and software interfaces – is an idea that is perhaps still in its infancy. Norman’s fascinating book is mature, thoughtful, but not as applicable to modern design.

Designing The Moment is subtitled “web interface design concepts in action”, and is literally several examples of real design decisions and a discussion of how they were developed with user experience in mind. Designing For The Social Web does something interesting; it recognizes the power of social marketing, yet focuses not on ROI, but on the users themselves. Designing Web Navigation is another one that discusses human behaviour and how we process human-computer experiences. Yes, we want to learn how people think, we want to know how they use the web, how they navigate, and what brings them back, but we want to do it by valuing the customers. Not just focusing on sales numbers and profits. These three are undeniably about modern design though; not engineering.

While I am absolutely fascinated by human-computer interaction and cognitive theory, and Norman is clearly an expert, I have to admit there is a limit to the time I can spend. Time is money. Money buys food. Food is eaten by my kids.

Ultimately, I don’t have the time for theory that needs a lot of processing to be applicable here and now. While I would love to have the time to read Norman’s The Design Of Everyday Things along with so many other HCI related books, there are just more practical modern books out there relating to web and interface design.

I recently read and enjoyed the job description for a UX Specialist at Viget Labs. This listing summarizes many of the soft skills and personality elements that are crucial to UX.

Our UX Specialists:

• Never tire of researching what users really want (and conducting his or her own research to validate or disprove those findings).
• Have an innate sense of – and strong opinion about – good usability when it comes to web applications, and an ability to clearly articulate both.
• Conceptualize and articulate complex ideas, then document them (using substantive, informed wireframes, site maps, flowcharts, personas, and use-case scenarios) to drive decisions, facilitate understanding, and reach consensus.
• Expertly present recommendations – to team members and clients, alike – on elements such as functionality, content, and navigation that are considerate of project scope and phasing.
• Have a proven record of success in managing web projects from straightforward marketing sites to complex web-based products that require loads of custom development.
• Have a perfectionist nature, but won’t lose momentum because of it.
• Play well with others – and take pride in his/her communicative and collaborative abilities.
• Understand established interactive technologies and possess an undying thirst to learn about new ones.
• Are experts on the latest trends, methods, and tools in the web industry.

The UX designer has to manage clear, concise communication both verbally and written, with business analysts and developers as well as everyday users. They must bring the needs of the user forward and make sense of them, ideally through user research and usabilty testing, and marry it both with financial concerns and functionality, making software not only worth buying and usable but responsive to what users really need and want to do. In other words, if you don’t want to juggle, you don’t want to be in UX design.

In Part I of Designing Web Navigation, Kalbach begins by explaining web navigation through discussing how users behave and navigate throughout the web, including their behaviours and typical mechanisms used. Types of navigation and labeling are considered.

In Part II, Kalbach offers a framework for navigation design, from evaluation through analysis of business goals, content, technology, and user research. He continues by discussing architecture and information structures along with organizational schemes, once again merging user needs with content and context. Layout from visual logic through page templates and wireframes are considered, along with presentation in terms of information design, interacting with navigation, and graphic design.

Finally, in Part III, Kalbach puts navigation in “special contexts” such as prior to or after search, within faceted browsing and social tagging systems, and finally when used within rich internet applications.

As the world wide web evolves and rich internet applications continue to be designed and developed, Designing Web Navigation offers a thorough look at designing navigation effectively. Along with Designing Interfaces, this book is one that occupies an honoured place on my shelf, and is another must-read for any user experience designer. The techniques used here can be applied on the web or anywhere interface navigation is used.