Re: [IxDA Discuss] Looking for clever localization ideas

[Jared M . Spool]

Hi John (and anyone else interested),

I was thinking about you.

Today, I sat through the rehearsal for Patrick Hoffman's upcoming
UIE Virtual Seminar on Icons and Images, where he went through
detailed discussions of taking icons to other cultures -- what works
and what doesn't.

Patrick works for Google Australia and has been researching the
jeebus out of this topic. His findings are really quite fascinating.

I'd highly recommend watching the seminar (either live or the
recordings), if you want to know more about making icons work in a
localized fashion.

Effective Use of Icons & Images
http://www.uie.com/events/virtual_seminars/icons_images/

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: jsp...@uie.com p:  1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks  Twitter: @jmspool



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=47602



Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Validating personas

[Jared M . Spool]

I'm going to add that Steve Mulder's book, the User is Always Right,
has some great discussion about using quantitative data to help flush
out your persona descriptions.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0321434536/?tag=userinterface-20


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=47635



Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

[IxDA Discuss] Components instead of Computers

[Jared M. Spool]

In following the Roka/Netflix player discussion, I was thinking that  
there's always been a push to simplify functionality down to the bare  
essentials.


When everyone was trying to put PCs in your pocket, Palm came out with  
with an elegant, brain-dead device that didn't do much, but what it  
did was the necessary components.


Pauric (if I understand his arguments) was saying that the Roka box  
was the wrong direction, because its more limiting than using a real  
computer in its place (ala Apple TV-ish).


Then, in my email this morning, Best Buy shows me this device: http://tinyurl.com/5stxrv 
  It's basically the logic component for a digital picture frame that  
you'd plug into a real display and use for store display or a trade  
show. I've even seen it used in food-court restaurants for menus.


Sure, you could just plug a low-end PC into the display and do the  
same thing, but is there a place for a dedicated component that has a  
great experience for doing just thing one or two things it needs to do?


Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Netflix direct-to-TV streaming

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 21, 2008, at 9:32 PM, James Nick Sears wrote:


But IMO this one was dead in the water before it released.


That's exactly what every industry pundit said about the iPod Shuffle.

Jared


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Points and Rewards in a Social Networking Site

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 9, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Timothy Makoid wrote:

I am a student majoring in Information Systems with  a concentration  
in HCI/ID/UX/HF. I'm working on my final project and we are  
designing a small scale social networking site. Were trying to come  
up with a sort of gaming system that encourages the users to  
interact with each other and the site. There are a couple ways to  
earn points: by taking quizzes based on stories, by sending  
different forms of greetings to each other, and by setting up goals  
for each other and achieving them.(Thats what we have currently).



Hi Tim,

Have you looked at http://www.iminlikewithyou.com ?

Your idea is the basic premise behind the site.

Why don't you look at what they've done and then tell us what you'd  
like to do that's different? If you narrow the focus of your question,  
you might get more response from the list.


Jared



Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Interaction Designer in new Ford Commercial

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 8, 2008, at 1:58 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:


On May 8, 2008, at 10:32 AM, mark schraad wrote:


'cause I probably design so much more than just the interface.


Like what?


Well, like thinking of the group's t-shirt, for one.





Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] the UX hall of shame

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 7, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Robert Hoekman Jr wrote:

 I'm only suggesting that the most important thing is the end user's  
experience,


It's absolute statement that I'm thinking is problematic.

I'm all for creating great experiences and, personally, I think it's a  
great way to create a long-lasting, successful business that benefits  
the customers, the market, and the shareholders.


However, I would not go so far as a suggest it's the *most* important  
thing *always*. There are many examples where businesses have had to  
compromise on the experience to survive.


The problem with the absolute statement of "experience is most  
important" is it can conflict with realities, thus putting the  
consultant as an agent of negative conflict instead of an agent of  
positive change.


In my mind, this is an attitude thing. If you have the attitude that  
experience can help, but may not be the biggest corporate priority at  
the moment, the business will accept you.


If you insist it's the most important thing when there are realities  
that suggest otherwise, you're now considered friction (and possibly  
unnecessary).


and if you're working with a client who's primary interest is not  
that, then it's pointless for them to have hired you in the first  
place.


If your work is all about making great experiences and it's not the  
most important thing to them, then I think you're correct. They won't  
get value from hiring you. I've certainly seen that many times in my  
career.


For a business, the *most* important thing is to still be in business  
in the future. If experience design helps with that (and we can cite  
more examples of how it can every day), then that's great. If it won't  
help (even if it won't hurt), then it's not going to be well received.


Jared



Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] the UX hall of shame

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 7, 2008, at 6:18 AM, Peter Picone wrote:

Good design is usually a good thing, but it always has to be  
balanced with the business and marketing plans.  It can never stand  
alone in isolation and expect to be effective just on its own merits.


At what point did meeting the needs of the business start to conflict  
with good design?


I've always believed that "good design" is coming up with a solution  
that meets the users' desires, fits within the goals of the business,  
and works within the constraints of the technology. It's only *good*  
design if it does all three of those. The best designs do those things  
well.


So, I don't understand how we can say that "good design is usually a  
good thing, but..." in that context.


Just sayin'

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks



Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] the UX hall of shame

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 6, 2008, at 6:48 PM, Robert Hoekman Jr wrote:

Where does that leave us as designers? The business is our client,  
not the




end user.



The end user is always your client. If not, you should fire the one  
that

hired you.


I don't share this opinion. In fact, I think it's a very dangerous  
opinion for someone acting in a consulting role.


Certainly, if you don't like the way someone does business, you  
shouldn't take work from them. But, beyond that, I think anyone acting  
as a consultant will get into a lot of trouble if they start asserting  
that the people who sign the checks are not the real clients, but the  
end user's are.


One big problem is it suggests you, as a consultant and not a business  
stakeholder, know more about their business, their clients, and their  
industry than they do. That's very unlikely to be true and will not  
engender a positive relationship for the long term.


In my mind, our clients (the business) are always right. It's just  
that, sometimes, they could be righter if they had a little more  
information (which is what we provide).


That's my $0.02.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] User Registration Processes: Double Opt-in success rates

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 6, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Gail Swanson wrote:

Can anyone direct me to research on drop out rates for online  
systems that require a user to click a link in a verification email  
to complete a registration process?  So far the only research I've  
found is related to email marketing.  The system I am working on  
requires the user to be more actively engaged in the application and  
therefore I don't think the email research is applicable.


Hi Gail,

If you poked around MarketingSherpa.com long enough, you might find  
something.


However, saying that, I have 5 words for you: Lies, damn lies, and  
statistics.


I wouldn't rely on outside stats about how someone else's design  
might've worked. I'm going to guess your situation is different enough  
that any statistic of what happened on another site would be  
practically useless.


Instead, I'd do a combination of A/B testing and usability tests. The  
usability tests would tell you what the actual experience is, while  
the A/B test will help quantify the experiential outcomes. (I wouldn't  
do one without the other -- you'll only get half the picture.)


That's my $0.02.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] the UX hall of shame

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 6, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Robert Hoekman Jr wrote:

When I started there, I was told, unofficially, that they never  
wanted their

products to be too good, because then no one would call in to customer
support. And customer support is where all the up-sells happen. You  
call
about a problem or to set something up and end up spending more  
money on
other products related to what you need to do. This is how GD  
operates. This
is why their site is so tragically bad and there is no apparent  
desire to

improve it.


Shhh! Don't tell Andrei! You'll rock his world!

:)

Jared


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] iPhone 2.0 Game Over? I think not!

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 6, 2008, at 2:39 AM, AJKock wrote:


Loosing a connection with the network will be a far
more "visible" and "problematic" for business people than it would be
for the youth.

This might explain why you see a lot of high school and college
students with iPhones. Connectivity is not the deciding factor in
their choice of phone.


One of my friends is a big-wig Boston VC. The other night at dinner,  
he whipped out his Blackberry and I said, "What? No iPhone for you?"   
His response was, "No way. I'm a VC. Having a phone without a  
replaceable battery is the kiss of death."


One of my Google friends told me that corporate wouldn't let them have  
iPhones because they weren't as secure as a Blackberry. They went on  
to tell me that the Blackberry has a feature that allows corporate IT  
to immediately erase all data remotely, in case the phone is lost or  
"acquired". Without that feature, any other phone was not on the  
official list.


Apparently, the experience of using a phone is much broader than just  
connectivity.


Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] can we make it to easy?

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 5, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:

I think you'll be hard pressed to find examples from the last two  
decades, and as you've already stated, it doesn't work.


Hey man, don't get in a lather.

You said that you didn't think *anyone* said those things. I said they  
did. You said you didn't believe me because I didn't cite it. I cited  
it.


I never said these philosophies were (a) popular, (b) showed  
successful long-term results, or (c) I agreed with them. All I said is  
that I know people who had said they thought it was a bad move to  
reduce complexity because it would impact their market share.


I've always been in agreement with you that it was a stupid way for  
them to proceed -- very short sighted and not in the best interest of  
their organization. But people do and say all kinds of crazy things.


So, don't get all flustered at me just because these people have  
foolish ideas.


Hugs & kisses,

Jared


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] can we make it to easy?

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 5, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Jason Zietz wrote:


Jared M. Spool wrote:
By the way, a lot of this comes from people who do a surface  
analysis on what makes games popular. In gaming, you can't have it  
be too easy. There is a requirement, for a successful game, for  
select users to have mastery that most users don't. In my  
experience, managers who promote the if-we-make-it-too-easy-we'll- 
erode-our-market philosophy often cite the success of video games  
as a rationale.




I have to strongly disagree with this sentiment.  Look to the  
Nintendo Wii and the recent popularity of casual gaming for examples  
where this notion does not hold.  I have been playing video games  
for an embarrassingly long time and yet my Mom can still give me a  
run for my money when playing Wii Tennis.  That doesn't make it any  
less fun nor does has it made the game unsuccessful.



Jason,

I'm sure your mom is very good at Wii Tennis. I'm sure she could whoop  
my ass at it. (My confidence in the statement comes from the fact that  
I've been beaten by 60-year-old first time players more than once,  
even though I've been playing for months now.)


In competitive play (person v. person), the challenge comes from  
players who are close. If your mom's skill towers above yours, then  
you won't find it fun to play her (since she whips your ass each time)  
and she won't find it fun to play you (because you provide a wimpy  
challenge). It's only if your skills are close to comparable that  
you'll find long term enjoyment from the game itself. (There may be  
external factors that make it fun, but we're talking about gameplay  
here.)


In solo play (person v. computer), the computer has to adjust its  
challenge level to meet yours. It's the same issues: If the computer's  
challenges are too great, they scare starting players off. If they are  
too simple, the player becomes bored. The best games constantly adjust  
the challenges to be slightly more difficult than the player's current  
level.


Andrei very wisely brought of World of Warcraft. Because of the multi- 
player aspect of this game, it has the issues of both solo and  
competitive play. It also is very successful because of its social  
aspects (sort of a new-millennium version of hanging-at-the-mall-with- 
peeps), which adds a dimension of community and camaraderie not  
possible in solo-play games.


But my original point had to do with manager's superficial analysis of  
gaming popularity. As I stated before, this is faulty thinking, but  
it's the origin of a lot of the don't-make-it-too-easy thinking that I  
see.


Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] iPhone 2.0 Game Over? I think not!

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 4, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Kontra wrote:

It seems to be true that Apple approached several of the telcos.  
All but
Cingular (including, initially AT&T) turned them down almost  
immediately,

from all reports.


Even if this were true, it says nothing about what exactly Apple's
business strategy actually was. It could easily have been a 'fact
finding' mission for example, as opposed to a 'bidding war' Apple
wasn't quite prepared to play at the time.


I have to admit, I have no idea what we're actually talking about  
here. If you could elaborate why we're talking about this, that might  
help me.


Jared


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] iPhone 2.0 Game Over? I think not!

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 4, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Kontra wrote:


Apple had hoped to get the telcos in a bidding war.


Is there any evidence to this at all, beyond mere pundit speculation?

Apple's AT&T partnership is not the result of 'losing' in a telco  
'bidding war.'


It seems to be true that Apple approached several of the telcos. All  
but Cingular (including, initially AT&T) turned them down almost  
immediately, from all reports.


In several reports, it is repeated that Jobs had hoped to get Cingular  
to move quicker or find a better deal by playing more than one company  
off of each other. But, because they turned him down, he was stuck  
with working on Cingular's time schedule.


I don't know if you'd call this 'losing'. I just call it a business  
strategy that didn't quite pan out.


And, as we see by the explosive growth of the iPhone market, the  
boards of the other telcos are probably questioning their original  
decisions.


Jared


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] iPhone 2.0 Game Over? I think not!

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 3, 2008, at 11:50 AM, dave malouf wrote:


How do you know that Verizon didn't
turn down Apple first?


Verizon *did* turn Apple down. It was Apple's first choice, but they  
laughed Jobs out of the boardroom.


When the iPhone was released, Verizon issued a press release saying  
that Apple had approached them first and they were proud of not saying  
yes because they felt it was a bad deal for both Verizon customers and  
shareholders. Their rationale was that the level of service demanded  
by Apple was unreasonable. (My understanding was the primary sticking  
point was that Apple would activate and service the phones from their  
own retail outlet, but I believe Apple was demanding too much money  
for each contract.)


Apple had hoped to get the telcos in a bidding war. They approached  
several simultaneously. Cingular was the only one that gave them any  
attention. It took 18 months to negotiate the deal with Cingular,  
partly because AT&T acquired them in the middle and negotiations had  
to start over.


[This came from several business articles documenting the iPhone's  
development, including one that appeared in Wired a few months back.  
I'm currently at 30,000 feet and not online, so I don't have citations  
(sorry, Andrei), but you can find the articles amongst my delicious  
links -- http://del.icio.us/jmspool -- probably tagged with something  
clever like Apple or iPhone. I used them as readings for my Experience  
Design Management class for Tufts.]


Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] can we make it to easy?

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 3, 2008, at 7:49 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:

Sorry Jared, unless you cite people who've told you otherwise, I'm  
not buying it. I've never heard anyone in the software industry ever  
make the claim they makes things complicated on purpose.


Sorry to break it to you Andrei,  but just because *you* haven't seen  
it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. :-)


Before I started UIE, in the mid-80s, I first encountered this  
attitude at a company called Autographix, which made presentation  
systems (before the days of Harvard Graphics, Aldus Persuasion, and  
long before MS Powerpoint). They sold their software/hardware solution  
practically at cost and made all of their money on training and  
support, particularly on user certification. (Certified users could  
get a 20-30% salary increase because the system was so arcane.)


I was working on a small skunkworks project to produce a pc-based (DOS/ 
CGA) what-you-see-is-what-you-get slide editing system. It worked  
pretty well too. When we presented it to mgmt, we were told that the  
company wasn't set up to sell software that didn't require training.


After I started UIE, I ran into several clients with this perspective.  
In the early '90s I ran into a typesetting company that was in a  
similar situation. (The name is escaping me right now, but they were  
based out of Wakefield, MA.) They sold to magazines and newsletters  
and made a ton of revenue through their training and support. Their  
users also benefited from the certification by commanding higher  
salaries that non-certified page setters. Certified users produced  
pages faster than the best users of other systems, so the customers  
(newspaper owners) saw the benefit of the ecosystem too. They did  
everything they could to keep certification high.


At the same time, we did a set of studies for a company in Newton, MA  
that made fire alarm systems for large building complexes. Again, they  
basically gave their systems away without a profit and made all their  
money on support contracts and training. We actually conducted  
usability tests on "layman" doing typical tasks. If the layman  
(without support certification) could complete the tasks, we had to  
*change the design*.


There were many product managers at WordPerfect, Lotus, and Novell  
that had the if-we-make-it-too-easy-we'll-erode-our-market philosophy.  
I've also met groups at MS and IBM that had a similar attitude.


One that stands out in my mind (and which you may be familiar with)  
was MetaCreation's Kai's Power Tools and Bryce. While the designer Kai  
Krause was a fan of hiding complexity, the tools had a huge learning  
curve. There was at least one version that hid functionality from  
users until they proved they could master the functions already  
provided, then it slowly revealed new functionality, much like video  
game.


By the way, a lot of this comes from people who do a surface analysis  
on what makes games popular. In gaming, you can't have it be too easy.  
There is a requirement, for a successful game, for select users to  
have mastery that most users don't. In my experience, managers who  
promote the if-we-make-it-too-easy-we'll-erode-our-market philosophy  
often cite the success of video games as a rationale.


If I thought about it harder, I could probably come up with more folks  
I've run into in the last 30 years with this attitude. I've never seen  
the strategy work, but that doesn't keep it from emerging from people  
who are trying to be a little too clever (and avoiding the hard work  
to rethink overly complex designs).


Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Trying to educate my design team

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 3, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Peter Merholz wrote:

Lunchtime should be fun and engaging. I can't imagine discussions  
more deadening then being told about Web standards. I would  
encourage you to take this time to engage in ideas, perspectives,  
and methods, to share case studies, and to encourage conversation.


For the record, I happen to know a bunch of people who find web  
standards really fun and exciting. They just light up when you start  
talking about a table-less existence.


For some people, it's a subject that is lot of fun and very engaging.

Just sayin'

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] can we make it to easy?

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 2, 2008, at 6:26 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:

>> The thinking goes... if the process is to easy, then everyone can do
>> it and it erodes my (the professional user's)
>> value in the marketplace.
>
> I know of no one who has ever said that or thinks like that. Further,
> I can certainly tell you that no one on the Photoshop team ever
> thought along those lines.

Interestingly, I have met product developers who did say that was  
their objective, years ago. They were concerned that their customers,  
all craftspeople who were being threatened by a commoditization of  
their skills, would reject software that didn't have a learning curve  
to it.

Interestingly, the inevitable simplified software came about and, sure  
enough, the crafts went mostly obsolete. In all the cases I'm aware  
of, the developers are no longer in business.

Complexity takes two forms: Tool complexity and domain complexity.  
Tool complexity can (and is often) rendered simpler through advances  
in interfaces. Often it's through the elimination of excessive  
features and options, to core functionality. While this does reduce  
the options available to the user, the reduction is often in the form  
of fringe functionality.

Domain complexity is more difficult. Here is where serious process re- 
engineering needs to take place. The going-back-to-the-blackboard-and- 
rethinking-the-core-processes kind-of approach.

Reducing tool complexity does open the user to faster productivity,  
but often still requires similar skill levels for the core skill. (A  
simpler drawing tool doesn't help you draw any better, only more  
efficiently.)

Reducing domain complexity brings new capabilities to users who  
previously couldn't master the skills. Think WYSIWYG database tools  
(ala Access or Filemaker) replacing the previous code-based generation  
(ala DBase or IDMS). Think desktop publishing replacing previous  
typesetting activities.

Of course, bringing capabilities to people without the formal  
skillsets results a flurry of crude activity, such as the ransom-note  
style publishing we saw in the early '80s. However, this flurry often  
seems to die down once people realize that it does matter what you do.  
Good examples and guidance such as templates help with this.

I think it's unlikely you can make something too easy. However,  
sometimes making it easier requires serious advances in the design  
approaches.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Design Thinking

[Jared M. Spool]

Here in New England, we have a saying:

If the glass is half full, you must be an optimist.
If the glass is half empty, well, you're probably a Kennedy.

This feels like a half-full/half-empty kinda thing.

On the one hand, I see where CF is coming from: The move in business  
is to acknowledge there is something special about design and that it  
needs to be part of business planning and strategy. Yet, there is very  
little (if any) discussion about the strategic and business talents  
that lay dormant amongst many designers. For those with those talents,  
that's got to be very frustrating.

On the other hand, I see a huge change in business: Design and (in  
particular) experience design are now regular conversations in the  
boardroom. They are definitely incomplete and flawed conversations.  
But the conversations are there. And this is new -- it wasn't  
happening 15, 10, or even really 5 years ago. This is good.

Modern business has been running the way they've been running for more  
than 150 years. Their structure hasn't really changed in that time.

Over history of business, you can see periods where the corporation  
awoke to new perspectives. The mass-production movement of the 40s and  
50s. The quality movement of the 70s and 80s. These are just two  
examples.

In each case, it took close to two decades for the bulk of  
organizations to realize this was the only real way to remain  
competitive. We're just at the start of this period for a design  
movement. I expect it won't be common thinking for at least another 10  
years.

This is good news for those folks who do understand business strategy  
and design. The demand for talent at senior levels is only going to  
grow. And now is the time to really get a handle on how to make the  
two parts fit together.

That's my $0.02 on the "design thinking" thingy.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?

[Jared M . Spool]

Todd wrote:

> Oh, oh, oh, I know%u2014what we need is eye tracking with mind
reading. Now, that's useful.

Hah! If we had mind reading, we wouldn't need the eye tracker.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p:  1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=28208



Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Apr 22, 2008, at 3:08 AM, Larry Tesler wrote:

> The fact that different observers see different things in the same  
> raw eye tracking data is of no more concern to me than the fact that  
> different players count a different number of words on the same  
> Boggle board. Some people see words that are hidden in plain sight;  
> some do not. But noticed or not, the words are there. In the tea  
> leaves, there are no hidden words.

Larry,

I have no doubt that the observations are of interest.

My point is that the inferences drawn from those observations have  
little-to-no validity, thus the tea leaf analogy.

If someone fixates on a link for a unusually large time, does that  
mean they are confused by it? Or they aren't confused, but are trying  
to decide if its what they want? Or they know whether they want it or  
not but are considering something else?

Different inferences will lead to completely different design  
solutions. Are you saying it doesn't matter which inference (and  
therefore, which design solution) the observers choose?

When you back an eye-tracking supporter into a corner about this, they  
all say, "Well, you should only use eye tracking in conjunction with  
other data collection tools and techniques to verify your inferences."  
In almost all cases, the "other data collection tools and techniques"  
would yield just as much value without the eye tracking as with it, so  
what's the benefit?

Second, in almost all uses of eye tracking I've seen in the last 5  
years, it's in the form of twisting the meaning of the heatmap/plot  
diagram/tea leaf reading into supporting whatever wacky inference the  
specialist wants to support. "See that big red spot there. That means  
the users are confused" v. "See that big red spot there, that means we  
fixed the design."

If there really is something to this eye tracking thing, I'd think  
you'd want your team members to all look at the same heat map and come  
to somewhat similar design implications.

Eyetracking equipment: $30,000
Ouija Board: $5
Quality design based on solid inferences from rich, meaningful data:  
Priceless

That's my take.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks



Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Apr 20, 2008, at 7:45 PM, Paul Nuschke wrote:

> Imagine that a user needs to click on a link to go somewhere. If she  
> fixates
> on the link and don't click it, then that's pretty good evidence  
> that she
> did not understand the link.

All you know is that the eye tracker registered that they fixated on  
the link and that they didn't click.

The notion that they didn't understand the link is one inference.

It's not the only inference. It may not be the right inference.

It is purely *your* interpretation that the user didn't understand it.

(And you could've gotten there without the eye tracking data.)

>> We know that people see things through their peripheral vision, such
>> as the scroll bar, so that's not recorded by the eye tracker. That
>> means we can't even assume that when someone doesn't gaze at a spot
>> that it wasn't seen.
>
> True, but that's a good thing. You can't read or see fine details in  
> your
> peripheral vision, so even if you notice something it doesn't mean  
> that you
> looked at it enough to understand what it contained (unless the  
> important
> details were very big).

Again. Your inference. You don't have any evidence to actually know  
that's true.

In fact, in psychographic phenomena, it's pretty amazing what people  
can see and deduce from the peripheral vision. There's a lot happening  
within 140 degrees of the focal point.

And it's pretty amazing what is lost within the center gaze area,  
especially with people who have field issues that are frequent in  
males over 40, females over 50, and anyone suffering from optic  
neuritis or other immune-deficiency-based symptoms. (In MS patients,  
for example, optic neuritis frequently shows up in late teens, early  
20s.)

So, you are just inferring meaning to the data you're collecting.

> In the example above, even if the user noticed that
> a link existed, if she did not attend to it, then she would not have  
> been
> able to read it.

Your inference. There are other likely inferences too.

>> Show me a study that shows that N separate evaluators looked at the
>> same eye tracking data and came away with the same conclusions and
>> I'll change my mind.
>
> That some data does not make sense is not a phenomenon unique to
> eyetracking. I've seen plenty of different interpretations of  
> statistics as
> well.

Ok. Does that make eyetracking work?

Not buying it. Still think it's up to the interpreter of the eye  
tracker.

Let me put it another way:

Would you, Paul, be comfortable letting your clients to use the eye  
tracker without any help in interpreting data from you. Is the device  
all they need to make the judgments necessary to provide good design  
advice?

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Apr 20, 2008, at 6:18 PM, mark schraad wrote:

> I am sure there is a technical term for
> this 'attention periphery' but I have not found it in the research
> yet.

Search for "situation inattentional blindness". The primary work was  
done by Simons at U of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne.

Jared


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?

[Jared M . Spool]

Paul Nuschke wrote:
> Eyetracking lets you see where people are looking in real time. 

Yes. But just because you know where someone looks or doesn't look
doesn't mean you know anything about what they see, what they wanted
to see, and what they didn't see. It's not clear to me how one
interprets the "they gazed at this point on the screen for 400 ms"
information. Was that good? Was that bad?

We know that people see things through their peripheral vision, such
as the scroll bar, so that's not recorded by the eye tracker. That
means we can't even assume that when someone doesn't gaze at a spot
that it wasn't seen.

With eye trackers, we have a bunch of observations but no way to
determine the proper inferences. Instead, all of the value of an eye
tracker comes from the interpretation.

Show me a study that shows that N separate evaluators looked at the
same eye tracking data and came away with the same conclusions and
I'll change my mind.

Until then, I'll continue to group it with tarot cards and palm
reading as a fine art.

> Without considering post-test analysis, this has real value in
helping the facilitator better understand what is happening without
interfering.

Exactly my point. As the President of Best Buy, John "JT" Thompson,
once told me (while I was delivering a great presentation with a ton
of data):

"I worked for Jack Welch at GE for 17 years and if I learned
anything while I was there, it was this: If you torture data long and
hard enough, it will confess to anything you want."

>One analogy I find useful, in terms of understanding what the
participant is doing/thinking, is that having eyetracking versus not
having eyetracking is like testing in person versus testing remotely.

You lost me there.

> I wonder, given your research background, Jared, if we are talking
about different types of eyetracking studies. For
academic/generalizable research, I have found eyetracking studies to
be pretty meaningless. 

Actually, that's pretty funny. I think the most exciting eye
tracking stuff is happening in research. There were a ton of good
posters and some neat presentations at CHI showing how eye tracking,
as an alternative input device, could have some really cool
applications, especially for accessibility.

I also think there are some interesting cognitive and behavioral
psych things to learn by using the devices. But I don't think
there's been anything useful in terms of using it as a tool to
enhance or inform the design process, so I'm guessing we agree
there.

> But for testing real products, and only trying to interpret results
for those pages, it can be useful and not all that difficult,
depending on the stimulus and tasks of course. 

Yah, not seeing that. 

What I see is that it falls nicely in the "If you can't dazzle 'em
with your brilliance, feel free to baffle 'em with your bullshit"
category of helping folks understand how to change their designs.

But then again, what do I know?

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p:  1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=28208



Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?

[Jared M . Spool]

I didn't say that I thought eye tracking was fluff.

I said that I thought it is a voodoo technique. Deducing information
about a design from eyetracking is equivalent to reading tea leaves
and using a ouija board.

The latter are cheaper, but just as reliable.

Every person I know who swears by eyetracking and has stories on how
its helped them can't explain how they would've gotten the same
results if some other professional had looked at the same raw data.
Until we can get to that point, the reader of the data will be more
important than the data itself, thereby making tea leaf reading a
viable alternative.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p:  1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=28208



Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Less talking, more doing (was: Thoughts on Alan Cooper's Keynote)

[Jared M. Spool]

On Feb 13, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Matthew Nish-Lapidus wrote:

> BUT, I also agree that there is a lot of needless debate about
> questions that nobody here can wholey answer.

I completely disagree that there's any needless debate!

(Oh, wait. That was needless, wasn't it?)

Damn.

Jared

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Intuitive Interface a misnomer?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Feb 12, 2008, at 1:20 PM, paige saez wrote:

> Yes! This is what I am speaking to exactly!
> Often I hear "This is not intuitive enough" as a reason why a
> design decision is not a good one. I think this argument falls flat
> for the same reason you stated above. Unless you are aware of what is
> intuitive to the person using the system there is no actual way to
> argue that something is "not intuitive enough."

Paige,

Are you saying that when you hear this, you should do nothing?

If someone says, "This is not intuitive enough," the translation (in  
my opinion) is "I'm trying to figure this out and I'm not getting  
it." To me, the question then becomes, "Will other important users  
have the same feeling?" If the answer is yes, then you've learned  
something important. (Now you need to learn *why* they are struggling  
-- but that's a different question.)

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Fwd: Thoughts on Alan Cooper's Keynote

[Jared M. Spool]

On Feb 12, 2008, at 5:06 PM, Jeff White wrote:

> On Feb 12, 2008 1:37 PM, Scott McDaniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In a strict display sense, this is the single most common phrase  
>> I've heard from
>> engineers/programmers about design:
>> "Why not just throw it in a data table and be done with it?"
>>
>> Scott
>>
>
> What's the issue with that? Kidding...
>
> How have you handled the situation?

He threw the programmers into a data table and was done with it.

:)

Jared

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Thoughts on Alan Cooper's Keynote

[Jared M. Spool]

On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:28 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:

> Designer's have process, but designer's don't use process.
>
> What does that mean? "Using" process often devolves into a paint by
> numbers type of way to solve problems for a designer.

For the record, our research over the years shows consistently that  
few knowledge workers (designers, lawyers, developers, sales people)  
follow a process in a paint-by-numbers fashion.

"Using process" seems to be an outsiders view (aka managers or folks  
from other disciplines) of how the magic of a discipline is  
accomplished.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Intuitive Interface a misnomer?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Feb 12, 2008, at 1:01 PM, paige saez wrote:

> In general I find that the term "Intuitive" is used in describing  
> interfaces
> way too often.


Hi Paige,

This was the exact topic of my Interactions08 talk.

It's also the topic of this article:
What Makes a Design Seem 'Intuitive'?
http://www.uie.com/articles/design_intuitive/

As you'll see, your thinking goes in the right direction.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Thoughts on Alan Cooper's Keynote

[Jared M. Spool]

I'm just saying that when we use language like "Their process is  
broken" instead of  saying "Our team's process is broken", we are  
communicating that we don't have any ownership in the problems.

I'm sure that most people here are great team members. We should  
continue that language when we're talking amongst ourselves in this  
forum. I fear by creating a language where the non-IxD folks who are  
part of our teams become the THEMs, we'll not get the results we're  
looking for long-term and community-wide.

Jared

On Feb 12, 2008, at 10:53 AM, David Malouf wrote:

> Jared,
>
> Teams does not mean same.
> Unique contributions and respect of individuality is in my  
> experience a core success criteria for cross-functional teams.
>
> Understanding differences of culture, process, methods, thinking,  
> theory, language, etc. is required.
> Being that they currently set the tone, they are pretty well  
> understood by us (that is my take). What is not well understood, is  
> them of us. And for that matter from conversations like these us of  
> us.
>
> I loved the historical perspectices of Chris Bernard's and Bill  
> Buxton's talks. We need more of that. Maybe you can help. ;-)
>
> But I do believe that uniqueness is something to be cherished and  
> while we work towards common goals we need to respect and  
> understand and envalue our differences. There is a distinct US and  
> a distinct THEM and to deny that, feels fake to me.
>
> Kumbaya is not going to get us anywhere, especially in terms of  
> this discussion.
>
> -- dave
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2008 9:58 AM, Jared M. Spool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 12, 2008, at 9:43 AM, David Malouf wrote:
>
>> Mark hit it on the head, it is a developer/engineering inspired  
>> and valued
>> process. It is for THEM! It is not about us, for us, by us, or  
>> valuable to
>> us. This is my #1 issue with agile. And all the things you say  
>> below about
>> getting design into agile, are hacks! They are not the best of  
>> what we can
>> do, but what we can do in THEIR framework.
>
> WHOA!
>
> Us?!? THEM?!?
>
> There's a whole lotta us vs. them coming out these days.
>
> While our own research on what makes successful experiences is  
> still young and rough around the edges, one strong pattern that  
> emerged immediately was that the most successful teams are actually  
> TEAMS. None of this "They don't get it" and "We need a process that  
> works for us" stuff.
>
> I'd be real careful promoting this us vs. them sentiment. I don't  
> see it leading to long term successful design practices.
>
> Just sayin'
>
> Jared
>
> Jared M. Spool
> User Interface Engineering
> 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
> e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
> http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> David Malouf
> http://synapticburn.com/
> http://ixda.org/
> http://motorola.com/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Thoughts on Alan Cooper's Keynote

[Jared M. Spool]

On Feb 12, 2008, at 9:43 AM, David Malouf wrote:

> Mark hit it on the head, it is a developer/engineering inspired and  
> valued
> process. It is for THEM! It is not about us, for us, by us, or  
> valuable to
> us. This is my #1 issue with agile. And all the things you say  
> below about
> getting design into agile, are hacks! They are not the best of what  
> we can
> do, but what we can do in THEIR framework.

WHOA!

Us?!? THEM?!?

There's a whole lotta us vs. them coming out these days.

While our own research on what makes successful experiences is still  
young and rough around the edges, one strong pattern that emerged  
immediately was that the most successful teams are actually TEAMS.  
None of this "They don't get it" and "We need a process that works  
for us" stuff.

I'd be real careful promoting this us vs. them sentiment. I don't see  
it leading to long term successful design practices.

Just sayin'

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Interaction|08

[Jared M. Spool]

On Feb 8, 2008, at 5:18 PM, Petroff, Greg wrote:

> So IxDA's first conference is off and running. You can follow the  
> action
> at the crowdvine site or through Twitter.

Yes, through the power of Web 2.0, you can carefully track every  
attendee's dinner plans.

:)

Jared

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] [Plug] Mental Models: Getting Into Your Customer's Head

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 26, 2008, at 12:05 PM, W Evans wrote:

> *Speaking of mental models etc...*
>
> Check out UIE's virtual seminar:
> Mental Models: Getting Into Your Customer's Head
> http://www.uie.com/events/virtual_seminars/indi_young/

Will,

Thank you for posting this.

To the list, in general: Would y'all like to see an announcement (aka  
"plug") for our events on IxDA? I've been resisting posting them only  
because I felt it was too "commercial" (and I figured my snarking no- 
value-added comments were enough noise). If people wouldn't mind a  
single mention of events as they appear on our calendar, I'd be happy  
to oblige.

What are your thoughts? (Is there an IxDA List-Priest who wants to  
help with policy here?)

Jared

p.s. I promise that none of our event announcements will try to  
"define" anything, leaving that to the momentum of the list. I  
wouldn't want to steal any thunder.

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Differnce between user interface and interactiondesign?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 25, 2008, at 5:02 PM, dave malouf wrote:

> the UI Designer, says, the button is left aligned, bevelled, has this
> rollover, and that action state, and this disabled state.
>
> The IxDer says how did the user even get to the page with the button,
> why is the button necessary and what comes after the button is
> pressed.

For real?

Why must there be a difference?

Isn't this just a Yam/Sweet Potato thing?

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Why do crappy interfaces sell?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 25, 2008, at 4:34 PM, Christine Boese wrote:

> A fart in the wind?

A fart in the wind, when well placed, can certainly matter.

That said, it's the case that the quality of the interface only  
matters in a selling situation sometime.

Having just purchased a car for my 17-year-old, I looked for certain  
qualities in the vehicle -- interface wasn't one of them. This car is  
going to live its last year of its life under the control of my son.  
He will do what it takes to learn its operation. I'll never drive it.  
Price and reliability were far more important to me.

Not all qualities are important to all people all the time. As much  
as we'd like to think the ones we contribute are always drivers,  
there are plenty of situations when they have no effect.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Differnce between user interface and interactio design?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 25, 2008, at 3:15 AM, Melvin Jay Kumar wrote:

> You become a senior as you add the various specialities into your  
> arsenal.
>
> You identify yourself by the various specialities you have worked in
> as well as academically gotten them.

While we're exploring other models, I'd recommend a World of Warcraft  
approach.

As you "kill" off designs, you gain experience points. Once you reach  
a certain number of points, you become a more experienced designer.

At a certain level, you can choose a specialty, for which you are  
awarded certain powers. As you continue to kill off more designs, you  
can further refine your specialty by choosing more powers.

Of course, when you reach level 50, you have to stop, but you can  
fight in the advanced battlefields and can start up new characters  
easier.

And, you have to pay $40/month for this. Make checks out to:

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks




*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Correlation between product usability and stock price?

[Jared M. Spool]

If you want to see how this is done, I strongly suggest you read the  
classic Built To Last. (http://tinyurl.com/2yjzoj) They've done a  
good job of how you create stock indexes based on business practices.

You don't really want to compare it with the market overall, since  
the market tends to equalize. Instead, you want to choose comparable  
organizations in the same industries with inverted metrics to see  
performance. (For example, tracking Netflix vs. Blockbuster or Apple  
vs. Sony.)

That said, the noise in the market data (such as this week's huge  
fluctuations) makes it so you need to look at fairly long windows.  
We're talking greater than 20 or 30 years.

Strategies like Usable products and UX are really too young to get  
solid data. In 40 years, we could have this conversation and it would  
likely be much more meaningful.

Jared


On Jan 24, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Mark Schraad wrote:

> This is a great idea... the caveat is the execution and metrics.  
> Bringing the into the boardroom will result in having your backside  
> handed to you. There is very little in the way of reliable or  
> reproducible metrics here. The list of investment is incredibly  
> front loaded with prior and forecastable success. I would LOVE to  
> see this theory fortified with harder evidence... hmmm, what should  
> I be doing nights and weekends...
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Thursday, January 24, 2008, at 09:51AM, "Todd Zaki Warfel"  
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> http://www.teehanlax.com/blog/?p=293
>>
>> Tehann+Lax invested $50k in what they called a UX fund last year and
>> tracked it against the rest of the market. They focused on companies
>> they felt focused on UX. Those included: Apple, Electronic Arts,
>> Google, JetBlue, Netflix, Nike, Progressive Insurance, Research in
>> Motion, Target, and Yahoo.
>>
>> Overall, they were up 39%, much better than the market average. Some,
>> however, did not fare that well.
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2008, at 9:41 AM, Jared M. Spool wrote:
>>
>>> My short list of some of those companies are Apple, JetBlue,
>>> Starbucks, Nintendo, and Netflix.


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Correlation between product usability and stock price?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 23, 2008, at 10:46 PM, Jerome Ryckborst wrote:

> Is there any evidence that companies whose products are more usable  
> see their stock price grow more than the stock market's average  
> growth?

Short answer: No.

That said, Wall Street (and executive boardrooms) are paying very  
close attention to those companies that are gaining competitive edge  
through delivering far superior customer experiences.

My short list of some of those companies are Apple, JetBlue,  
Starbucks, Nintendo, and Netflix.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Should web apps maintain state when moving between tabs

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 23, 2008, at 7:23 PM, Adam Connor wrote:

> So, getting back to my question, if after drilling down within  
> "Comics"
> I click on "Artwork" so I can see something there and then go back to
> "Comics" should I still see my drilled down results.

Half an hour creating a working paper prototype, then trying it out  
on 4 to 6 buddies, should yield the answer you're seeking, young  
grasshopper.

:)

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks



*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] new features

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 23, 2008, at 10:15 AM, Mark Schraad wrote:

> If your are introducing a new feature on a consumer web site, does  
> it always need to be overtly called out? Particularly if it a catch  
> up feature (your competition already has something similar). I am  
> wondering if there is benefit in letting the user discover a cool  
> feature (any behaviorists out there?) - as opposed to directing  
> their attention to it? Has anyone had this conversation or have  
> insights to the issue?

Hi Mark,

I've written about this topic too. (This week feels like revisiting  
my entire publication library!)

Designing Embraceable Change
http://www.uie.com/articles/embraceable_change/

Curious what you think,

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Should web apps maintain state when moving between tabs

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 23, 2008, at 3:38 PM, Connor, Adam wrote:

> Consider the following, I have two tabs Tab A and Tab B.  Under Tab  
> A is
> Process A and under Tab B is Process B. If a user begins Process A,  
> and
> at any point clicks on Tab B (for any reason) when the user returns to
> Tab A, should they be placed at the same point in Process A as they  
> were
> when they left?

I'm thinking if you have to ask this question, then Tabs may be the  
wrong way to handle the interaction.

There are red flags all over this question.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 22, 2008, at 12:37 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:

> If this list has proven anything, it's that we CAN'T define  
> "information", "interaction", "design", "usability", "personas",  
> "designers", "design process", "design thinking", "typography",  
> "layout", or any other term.
>
> Hell, we can't even define "definition."
>
> That may very well be the case, but I'm going to give it a shot  
> anyway. It's entirely possible that you're far more wise than I,  
> and this little group will never come up with a definition good  
> enough to suit the IxDA Board and community, but I still say it's  
> worth a shot. And if it ends up being a waste of time, well then I  
> learn something.

"Wise" isn't the right word.

"Pessimistic" could work.

"Down-right pissy" is probably best.

:)

Jared

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 22, 2008, at 11:52 AM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:

> With all this in mind, I still don't understand why you're calling  
> me on this in this particular thread.

Because I'm a mind reader. Why else would you need a definition of  
one, except to draw a box around it so you can say the other is  
different? :)

> I have yet to say anything about ACD being better than UCD.

So, it's not?

> I've only said we should work to define both.


Yah, so I've heard. And how's that working for you?

The problem with all these "definitions" is the old saying, "As soon  
as you draw a box around me, the first thing I want to do is step out  
of it."

If this list has proven anything, it's that we CAN'T define  
"information", "interaction", "design", "usability", "personas",  
"designers", "design process", "design thinking", "typography",  
"layout", or any other term.

Hell, we can't even define "definition."

Maybe we need Justice Potter Stewart to moderate this list?

Just sayin'

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks



*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 22, 2008, at 2:27 AM, Jeff White wrote:

> On Jan 21, 2008 7:28 PM, Gretchen Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Out of curiosity (I'm very confused by this thread) is the issue with
>> "user-centered" design the fear that it's somehow ignoring biz &  
>> tech?
>>
>
> No, the issue is that a bunch of really opinionated people can't seem
> to read and digest things that have been long established.

User-centered design is a 1980s concept that has long outlived its  
usefulness, except in the deepest, darkest corners of IT (where the  
COBOL still lives and breathes).

Here, in 2008, the only people who seem to want to talk about it are  
those people who've decided they want to take the same can of beans,  
replace the label, and then declare it to be somehow better. So far,  
they have yet to explain why the new label improves the old can.

Yet, we love them anyways.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 21, 2008, at 1:12 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:

>
> The definition of UCD should include discussion of how it's  
> practiced. Same
> for ACD, and so on.

Robert,

I think you're grand and really smart. I love your work.

But I think you gotta quit with the Activity-Centered-Design-Is- 
Better-Than-User-Centered-Design stuff. It's just not going anywhere,  
man.

First, as you've discovered, there is no standard definition of User  
Centered Design. This is because the term doesn't stand alone.

It's a relative term, originally coined to deal with people who  
designed things without ever considering users, their activities, or  
their needs. In those days, (and I was there when it was coined,)  
common practice was to create products with features, functionality,  
and interaction models that satisfied business goals without any  
attention to who used it, why they used it, or how they used it.

So, by starting to talk about a user-centric process, people could  
communicate with the then designer-cum-programmer who was all about  
shipping code without actually thinking about use. And it basically  
worked.

I've heard/read you go on and on about activity-centered design. (To  
be fair, I've been known to go on and on about things. In fact, I've  
been thinking about joining a support group about going on and on.  
It's called On And On Anon. :) )

To restate what I've heard from you when you start talking about  
activity-centric process, you say that the differences between users  
don't matter as long as you focus on the activity. That if you focus  
on activity, you cover the needs and create great designs without all  
the heavy lifting involved in studying differences in users.

I think for some applications, that is correct. One I've heard you  
talk about is photographic sharing sites, like a Flickr.com or  
Photobucket.com. If you focus on the activities, such as uploading,  
designating "friends" to share with, printing, and manipulating  
photos (red-eye removal, cropping, rotation, color adjustment), it  
doesn't matter what the differences are. After all, uploading is  
uploading and printing is printing, no matter how smart, tall, or  
redheaded the user is.

To some extent, I think you're correct about this.

However, not all apps are the same. Imagine the same application, but  
not used by the general public, but instead professional  
photographers. Imagine the business, because they are a niche market,  
trying to go for as many specialties as possible: wedding  
photographers, industrial photographers, mall photo studio chains,  
and private photo studios that do yearbook pictures.

Now the functionality and interface needs to change, not just because  
the business needs are different for each one, but because of the  
nature of the work. For example, where the person doing the uploading  
may be the photographer themselves in the wedding photographer  
instance, with the private studio it likely to be an assistant who  
has little photographic expertise (such as a part-time college  
student). Providing sophisticated image manipulation functionality  
for the former audience may be dangerous to the end product if  
provided the same way to the latter audience. Here, audience  
differences *do* matter and designing for them requires attention.

Instead of constantly harking in a mine-is-better-than-yours format,  
why don't you start helping us understand how, as designers walking  
into a new project, we can begin to determine if we can get away with  
only applying budget and resources to activities, or if we're in one  
of these situations where we need to really think about the  
subtleties in user differences.

(And don't cop out with a "you never need to think about user  
differences" answer, because you & I both know that isn't true. Never  
is never the right word. :) )

Hugs & kisses,

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 21, 2008, at 1:12 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:

> The definition of UCD should include discussion of how it's practiced.

Ok, then just amend "practiced at the whim of the practioner."

Oh, by the way, add that also for interaction design, information  
architecture, visual design, and every other UX sub-discipline.

Jared


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 20, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:

> The definition of UCD from UPA's Body of Knowledge glossary:
>
> "An approach or philosophy that emphasizes early and continuous  
> involvement
> of users in the design and evaluation process"
>
> This definition is hardly fulfilling. If UCD could be wrapped up in  
> a single
> sentence, we wouldn't be having this debate every week in the first  
> place.

You're on a snark hunt (http://tinyurl.com/27uzen).

You won't find a definition because it doesn't exist.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Sharepoint

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 18, 2008, at 1:41 PM, Patrick Neeman wrote:

> Then, as a group, I would view this as an opportunity to that this  
> "poor tool" and turn it into something useful. That, my friends, is  
> a consulting opportunity, not a "this tool sucks, don't use it"  
> opportunity.

"If you're not part of the solution, there's good money to be made in  
prolonging the problem."
http://despair.com/consulting.html

Jared

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is user research a band-aid for "the listening deficit"?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 8, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:

> Well, obviously. :) I'm not suggesting that companies should listen  
> better
> and simply do what users tell them, only that companies could  
> listen better
> and perhaps, with a little sound judgment and analysis, avoid the  
> need to
> hire outsiders to figure out their audiences for them.

I tell our clients that hiring someone to do their user research for  
them is like hiring someone to take their vacation for them. It gets  
the job done, but something gets lost in the translation.

Along the same lines, hiring someone to do their design for them  
probably has similar results.

:)

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks



*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Post Mortems

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 8, 2008, at 11:57 AM, Sarah Kampman wrote:

> The seed for the meeting is: "Imagine it's 10mo from now
> and the project failed. Why did it fail?"

Related note: Scott Berkun talks about a cool technique where you get  
the team to brainstorm on how to screw up the project. Seed question:  
"If we really wanted to, what would be the ways we could make this  
project fail?" Then, you inspect each brainstorm item and talk about  
what you'd do to prevent such a thing from happening.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Need ideas for green-themed prizes to promote "Go Paperless" launch

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 8, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Gloria Petron wrote:

> Front runners:
> Fabric grocery bags, but not necessarily for first prize.
>
> Already shot down:
> Coffee mugs, gift cards, dinner for 2, donations to plant-a-tree  
> charity.
> (I know. For a bank, we're an awful bunch of scrooges.)
>
> Does anyone have any experience with this? Any ideas would be greatly
> appreciated!

Even better:

Energy use meter
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/travelpower/9f4f/

Jared

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Need ideas for green-themed prizes to promote "Go Paperless" launch

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 8, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Gloria Petron wrote:

> Front runners:
> Fabric grocery bags, but not necessarily for first prize.
>
> Already shot down:
> Coffee mugs, gift cards, dinner for 2, donations to plant-a-tree  
> charity.
> (I know. For a bank, we're an awful bunch of scrooges.)
>
> Does anyone have any experience with this? Any ideas would be greatly
> appreciated!


Solar power recharger for ipod/phone
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/travelpower/7d34/

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is user research a band-aid for "the listening deficit"?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 8, 2008, at 6:58 AM, Adrian Howard wrote:

> On 7 Jan 2008, at 17:49, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:
> [snip]
>> Engineering departments are not often set up to listen. They're set
>> up to
>> build, build, build. This disconnect is where the problem starts, I
>> think.
> [snip]
>
> I think it's worse than that in many situations. Developers get
> actively punished when they go listen to folk and go "off track", or
> point out issues that may effect the end-user experience. It's viewed
> as "making more work" rather than "making things better".
>
> Personally I think this is the cause of the evil developer-hates-the-
> user stereotype in almost all cases. Not a lot due to the way that
> developers-are. A lot to do with the environment the developers  
> work in.
>
> One of the many reasons I like more agile development environments
> that emphasise communication across all the normal silos.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

In our research, it's all about the measures and rewards. What gets  
measured, gets done. What gets rewarded, gets done well.

We regularly come across teams where the culture (and it *is* a  
cultural issue) rewards great design above all else. In those  
cultures, you regularly see a focus on team problem solving and great  
organization-wide communication.

We also come across teams where the culture rewards some other  
factor, such as time-to-market or reduced costs. In those cases,  
those factors will trump intra-organization communication of design- 
related issues, except when those issues will drive the reward factor.

Want something to happen: build a culture that rewards it.

Agile, by itself, isn't more likely to reward good design. Like any  
methodology suite, it can be bent to fit the existing culture's  
reward policies. As many teams are now discovering, in the wrong  
cultures, Agile is just as toxic and waterfall.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Need advice: the login form that did signups

[Jared M. Spool]

As with everything, it doesn't matter what the research of other  
sites says. It only matters how your users respond to the design. So,  
go ahead and try it. Let us know how it works out.

Jared

On Jan 7, 2008, at 6:42 PM, Vlad Fratila wrote:

> Hi Jared, thanks for the answer.
>
> I read your article a few days ago. I'm proud that I was aware of the
> keypoints from before :) Very good article.
>
> Although I chose not to do it my way, there are some things that make
> this case a bit interesting.
>
>> you'll need a lot of explanation to (1) get the users to put an  
>> email address
>> into a box without an accompanying password and (b) understand  
>> that's how
>> they sign up.
>
> target audience = programmers.
> (1) i want them to supply the password in the first step, really.
> these kind of users don't make typing mistakes. And, even if they do,
> I'll mail them their password in the follow-up email (in my oppinion,
> that is required anyway, after any signup process).
> (b) i'm sure they'll get it
>
>
>> additional persuasive copy would need to be on top of whatever  
>> other copy
>> is there to promote account creation in the first place.
>
> there is no marketing copy. Yes there is, product features, and they
> are somewhere else. + you could use this design:
>
> username field
> pass field
> (to the left)Need a new account? Use this form and see what
> happens..(to the right) Sign in
>
> I think I am going to try this after all, see how it works out.
>
> PS. You know, this should work really well with OpenID :)


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Need advice: the login form that did signups

[Jared M. Spool]

Hi Vlad,

I just published an article about Account Sign-In Mistakes:
http://www.uie.com/articles/account_design_mistakes/
(Subsequent comments here: http://tinyurl.com/2rzqsu )

My thoughts about your design below:

On Jan 5, 2008, at 11:19 AM, Vlad Fratila wrote:

> I decided I don't want anything from the user at signup. Well, except
> an email, a password and possibly a captcha to skip the email
> validation.

That's good. We've found the less you ask when people they initially  
sign up, the better.

> I want my login form to do signup as well.
>
> When the user presses submit, if the email is not in the db, I tell
> him to enter the captcha and, after a second submit, i present him
> with his dashboard.
> There is of course a use case for users that forgot their account  
> data.
>
> What do you think about this when comparing with the classic login
> form + additional "new account" button? And ... is it viable for
> signups that require additional data (to be presented in the 2nd step,
> with the captcha).

I think this may not be such a good idea. I've seen this done before  
and it hasn't performed well.

What I'm betting you'll find when you conduct user tests (I know,  
user tests are *so* old school) is you'll need a lot of explanation  
to (1) get the users to put an email address into a box without an  
accompanying password and (b) understand that's how they sign up.

Depending what the site is and the benefits of account creation, this  
additional persuasive copy would need to be on top of whatever other  
copy is there to promote account creation in the first place.

Having the traditional two functions takes more real estate, but  
there have been many examples of nicely designed sign-in and account  
creation functions. I suggest you look to them for inspiration.

Hope that helps,

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks



*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is user research a band-aid for "the listening deficit"?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 7, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:

> Engineering departments are not often set up to listen. They're set  
> up to
> build, build, build. This disconnect is where the problem starts, I  
> think.

In our research, a lot of it plays into the organizational structure.

Often the management tree of the organization where engineering  
(information sink) joins up with customer support (information  
source) is at a senior executive level, sometimes even the CEO. It's  
not the job of those executives to communicate what the two groups  
are doing. Why should engineering invest more money to produce a  
better product if only support sees the cost reduction benefit?

We've found the best organizations put fiscal rewards and bonuses  
into the support/engineering communication path. For example, for  
many years, select teams at (believe it or not) Microsoft had a bonus  
for the developers/engineers who kept support minimized for their  
products. In essence, money saved from reduced support costs was put  
into bonuses for the design & development team.

If you want to fix the problem, follow the money.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Embedded Interaction Design?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 6, 2008, at 10:20 AM, dave malouf wrote:

> Sorry to all the good recruiters
> on this list, but way way way too many recruiters (especially the
> offshored variety) do the rest of you a REAL disservice and well, it
> tarnishes your good name.

99.9% of all recruiters ruin it for the rest of them.

Jared




*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] The death of web usability testing as we know it?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 3, 2008, at 12:19 AM, Oleh Kovalchuke wrote:

> On Jan 2, 2008 9:57 PM, Jared M. Spool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Why" is irrelevant until you're asked to repeat a past success.
>
>
> Indeed. And armed with the updated "best practices" for the  
> starting designs, you repeat the process with new (or perhaps the  
> same goals), but inevitably in a new context.
>
> It is intelligent design evolution after all - the starting point  
> will not be a primordial soup, the perpetually updated results will  
> differ as well with exception of niche platypuses and with the  
> unenviable fate of design dinosaurs.

Let me know how that works for you.

:)

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] The death of web usability testing as we know it?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Jan 2, 2008, at 3:17 AM, Oleh Kovalchuke wrote:

> 1) Just like in biology the "why" question is irrelevant for the final
> measurable outcome as long as the outcome is optimized (sales,  
> click through
> – whatever is measured).  Just like in evolution the why question is
> important and will be debated in academia.


"Why" is irrelevant until you're asked to repeat a past success.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] The mighty UX guru has spoken - Discuss!!

[Jared M. Spool]

On Dec 20, 2007, at 6:15 PM, Joseph Selbie wrote:

>>  I understand. But this doesn't really explain your analogy that a  
>> Usability professional is like a movie critic, so I'm standing by  
>> my statement.
>>
>
> I wasn’t trying to say that being a usability professional is like  
> being a movie critic in terms of *specific* methods. I was using  
> the movie critic as one example of the age old debate as to whether  
> being able to critique, evaluate, measure, analyze a domain,  
> bestows on one the ability to design or create at an equally high  
> level in that domain. My answer is no.

BUT USABILITY PRACTITIONERS DO NOT JUST CRITIQUE AND EVALUATE.

THERE'S A LOT MORE TO THE JOB.

Your constant insistence that this is the extent of the fields  
responsibility is, to me, infuriating.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] The mighty UX guru has spoken - Discuss!!

[Jared M. Spool]

On Dec 19, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:

> What I need are
> people who can not only give me feedback, but feedback I can actually
> do something with, or ideas that can be implemented or meet the same
> design constraints I have to use in designing the solution. Feedback
> that I can't do anything with comes across as complaints, and
> listening to complaints day in and day out can make one about as
> likable as the folks who sit at the DMV processing paperwork.
>
> So in order to get feedback from evaluations that a designer can
> actually do something with, the person providing the evaluation needs
> as much understanding about the problem as the designer. And I don't
> mean just the "user" understanding. I mean the business, the
> technology, visual, interaction, project deadlines, etc. I've worked
> with plenty of researchers and usability folks who get this. The ones
> who don't generally don't like me.


Brilliantly put.

This is what I've been trying to say all along. I should just have  
you write my responses from now on. :)

Jared


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] The mighty UX guru has spoken - Discuss!!

[Jared M. Spool]

On Dec 19, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Joseph Selbie wrote:

> I appear to have touched a nerve.

Yes. You have. I read what you've written and think your promoting a  
design approach that is based on an outdated understanding of what  
modern usability practice is.

It comes from two assertions in your responses:

1) Your assertion that the "something magical" component of design is  
relegated only to people with the role of designer on the team and  
that other people can't contribute equally. (“If a designer isn't  
more enlightened about good design than a usability
practitioner, than I would have to say they probably shouldn't be  
designers.")

2) Your assertion that somehow the work of some members of the team  
is naturally harder than the work of others. ("I just said design was  
harder because it has to include the awareness of usability along  
with creativity.")

Statements like "It is harder to make a movie than to write a movie  
review" implies that you have a very narrow view of what good  
usability practice can provide the design process. As someone who  
works very hard (and it *is* hard) to provide good information into  
the design process, this is akin to having someone describe the  
design process as "making things pretty". "Awareness of usability" is  
a 1992 notion of usability practice, not a modern one.

It seems only fair, if you're going to preach a position of how  
design should be approached, that it should take into account modern  
practices.

We can agree to disagree on these points, if this is what you truly  
believe. I have no further need to argue here. I think I've made my  
points.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Adding Depth to Skills

[Jared M. Spool]

On Dec 19, 2007, at 11:35 AM, Scott Cobban wrote:

> I love the simplicity and
> straightforward nature of, say, a "Don't Make Me Think" but I don't  
> know
> where to go from there.

Three initial recommendations then:

Robert's book, Designing for the Obvious
Dan's book, Designing for Interaction
Bill Moggridge's book, Designing Interactions

All of them are well written and easy reads. Each will give you a  
different perspective on interaction design. These three are  
essential for the bookshelf of any serious interaction designer.

Jared


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Recruiting research participants

[Jared M. Spool]

On Dec 19, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Patrick Grizzard wrote:

> Any recommendations?

Hi Patrick,

UsabiltyWorks, albeit based out of San Francisco, has a recruiting  
arm that does a fabulous job of this.

I suggest you contact Dana Chisnell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm  
sure she'd be more than happy to explore if there's a match between  
what you're looking to do and what her outfit can help with.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] The mighty UX guru has spoken - Discuss!!

[Jared M. Spool]

On Dec 19, 2007, at 2:00 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:

> On Dec 18, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Jared M. Spool wrote:
>
>> What it sounds like you're trying to say is that somehow designers
>> are more enlightened about good design than usability practitioners.
>> I think this is a fallacious argument (and, to some, probably
>> insulting).
>
> Generally speaking good designers are more enlightened about good
> design. If a usability wants to learn more about what it takes to
> craft good design, then that person will become enlightened. However,
> given equal education in theory and academics, unless a person
> *crafts and makes* a product with their own two hands, there's no way
> they will ever know as much as the person who does. Simple as that.

Yes, yes.

Many people who conduct usability practice these days are not  
specialists, but generalists on the design team with other  
responsibilities, including design. Because design teams have been  
shrinking over the last ten years, you rarely find teams consisting  
of specialists. (Wrote about this here: http://tinyurl.com/2oba65)

The result is, as already has been mentioned in this thread, that  
many usability practitioners also regularly "craft and make" elements  
of the designs their teams produce.

I don't understand why there's a need to drive this dividing line  
between design professionals and usability professionals. I  
understand that many people don't like Jakob's approach to expressing  
his notion of right and wrong, but he doesn't represent the state-of- 
the-art in usability practice any more than Steve Jobs represents the  
way things are done across all of design.

Why is it important that designers distance themselves from the  
evaluation side? Where is this coming from?

Jared


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] The mighty UX guru has spoken - Discuss!!

[Jared M. Spool]

On Dec 19, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Murli Nagasundaram wrote:

> Whew!  Did I get all this okay?

Almost.

You seem to want to think broadly (very commendable), but then you  
take a narrow view when you define the base discussion elements:

> The process of Design generates an artifact which then needs to be  
> evaluated
> for (among other things) Usability.
>
> The process of Usability Testing generates data which inform the  
> Designer
> about how to go about modifying the design.

I would argue that the process of design produces a solution that  
improves an individual's quality of life. In the process of design,  
artifacts are generated. Those artifacts are then evaluated in a  
myriad of ways (not just by usability practitioners) to move the  
design forward.

The process of usability testing provides insights and information  
for the design team to make future design decisions. For example, you  
can usability test a finished product to learn about outstanding  
frustration or unmet requirements that would then be used in the  
requirements of an entirely new product.

I'd also argue that usability testing is but one tool of the  
usability practitioner. A good usability practitioner has many tools  
in their toolbox for collecting data, including, but not limited to,  
field studies, interviews, and about 80 different variants on the  
traditional usability test. They also have great tools for  
synthesizing that data into information and insights and other great  
tools for communicating that information and insights to the team as  
effectively as possible.

I think your line of thinking (and your description of it) will get  
much easier if you reach parity on how your describing the problem.  
Comparing a process of design to a single tool in the usability  
practitioner's toolbox results in an impedance mismatch.

Another way to think about it is to look at how designers make  
decisions. Design is an iterative process, where the designer posits  
an approach then makes decisions on the effectiveness of that  
approach, sometimes comparing it to alternative approaches and  
sometimes just looking for insights by 'raising it up the flagpole  
and seeing who salutes it.'

Some decisions are made from their own gut feel. Other decisions are  
made from business needs. Other decisions are made from data  
collected from the people who the design is for.

Usability practice is focused on collecting the user's information,  
which is varied and complex. That information is analyzed,  
synthesized, then absorbed into the decision making process.

I suggest, if you want to philosophize broadly about the nature of  
design, you should choose broad discussion elements to do so.

BTW, your notion about security is correct. To state it a different  
way, it's selective usability, where you want to make an unusable  
design for the villians or intruders, while giving a very usable  
design (with minimal frustrations) for the good-guys. It's an  
extremely hard set of design challenges, compounded by the dedication  
the villians/intruders are employing to defeat it.

:)

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Target ratios for skill sets or roles

[Jared M. Spool]

On Dec 18, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Jerome Ryckborst wrote:

> Is this an appropriate list of roles?

Hi Jerome,

Our research shows that focusing on roles is the wrong approach.  
Teams that focus on skills are more likely to create great user  
experiences that teams that focus on roles. In those teams, they may  
have skills distributed across team members and any given team member  
will have a pile of skills. This creates a team that is more flexible  
and can react better to the demands placed upon it.

Another advantage is that focusing on skills reinforces a culture of  
constant improvement across the individuals on the teams and sets up  
nice opportunities for mentorship and coaching from within, which is  
one of the most effective ways to bring up the quality of the team's  
capabilities.

I've written about the skills necessary more in an article, Assessing  
Your Team's UX Skills: http://tinyurl.com/22c3qw

Hope this helps,

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Adding Depth to Skills

[Jared M. Spool]

On Dec 18, 2007, at 11:35 AM, Brian Hoffman wrote:

> I'm aware of some resources, such as IAI and the UPA (Ultimate Players
> Association?!), but suspect I'm missing quite a few.


Hi Brian,

You can find books we recommend to our clients at http://www.uie.com/ 
bookstore and many more resources on our site: http://www.uie.com

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] The mighty UX guru has spoken - Discuss!!

[Jared M. Spool]

On Dec 18, 2007, at 6:26 PM, Joseph Selbie wrote:

> If a designer isn't more enlightened about good design than a  
> usability
> practitioner, than I would have to say they probably shouldn't be  
> designers.
> I'm not sure why this has to sound like it would be insulting to  
> usability
> practitioners. Designing is a different process than evaluation.
>
> Clearly, both designers and usability practitioners have to  
> understand the
> principles of what makes a site, or software or product usable, but  
> this
> doesn't mean that the person who is the usability specialist would  
> be an
> equally good designer.

With all due respect, let me say this: This is just a load of crap.

Good design is an end result that is the product of the work of a  
team. To produce good design, all members of the team need an almost  
equal understanding of good design. Interaction designers will know  
how they contribute to that goal, as will visual designers, but they  
won't necessarily have cross-over skills.

Of course, designing is a different process than evaluation. In fact,  
I defy you to tell me what the "process of design" is, particularly,  
as it leads to the predictable and reliable creation of good designs.

Designing is not a unified, singular process. It's stylistic. It  
takes a lot of different components. It requires a specific type of  
culture to do well. It thrives in certain contexts and fails in  
others. It involves skills from all over the organization. (http:// 
tinyurl.com/2wyjj4) Even the best organizations, have tremendous  
trouble doing it predictably (Apple's iPhone vs. Apple TV -- both  
announced on the same day and produced in the same culture, but have  
very different results).

Unless you're a one-person company, more than one person contributes  
to the final design. I contend that all the members on the team have  
to have an equal enlightenment about good design (and about how their  
individual skills and talents will contribute to that good design)  
for a good design to result.

> I will also say (clearly opening myself to heated disagreement) that
> designing something is much more difficult than evaluating and  
> incrementally
> improving something already established. It requires a holistic  
> appreciation
> of many factors. And it takes talent -- which is not simply the sum  
> of all
> the skills and experiences the designer has picked up over the  
> years -- it
> is more than that. *Good* designers are, in fact, more enlightened  
> about
> good design than *good* usability practitioners and it is that  
> indefinable
> something that separates art from science that makes it so.

I'm glad you recognize this is clearly opening yourself up to a  
heated disagreement because, again with all due respect, this too is  
crap. There is virtually nothing in this statement that is accurate.

If you believe that designing something is more difficult than  
evaluating something, (a) you've probably never seriously evaluated  
anything and (b) you probably should be an evaluator, since design  
seems so difficult to you. Try being at the leading edge of  
evaluation for 25+ years and then tell me how difficult it is. Doing  
a quality job at evaluation is extremely challenging for even the  
most talented in the field.

I think your implication that usability practice is about "evaluating  
and incrementally improving something already established" shows  
misses what good usability practice bring to the design process. Good  
usability practice informs the team by providing insights into the  
team's decision making process, thereby enhancing the quality of the  
resulting design.

Your definition of talent is also incorrect. Talent, by most  
behavioral definitions, is not the sum of all skills and experiences,  
which are separate from talent. Talent is an innate capability. You  
can have two people with the exact same skills (which are learned)  
and experiences, yet if one is more talented, you'll see results.  
That's why David Ortiz plays baseball very differently than Alex  
Rodriguez. Both have almost equivalent skills (as does every major  
league player) and very similar experiences, but very different talents.

Designing is not any more an artistic endeavor than usability  
practice. And good design employs as much "science" as good  
evaluation does.

Of course, these are just my opinions and based purely on my  
experience doing research and evaluation the field of design for  
almost 30 years. It's likely I'm not enlightened enough to understand  
how it's really done, so please assess the validity of my comments  
accordingly.

Jared

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this

Re: [IxDA Discuss] The mighty UX guru has spoken - Discuss!!

[Jared M. Spool]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Comparing 'usability' to 'design' is like comparing 'cooking' to a  
'watermelon'. It's a non-sensical notion, in my mind.

Usability is a quality of a design, like performance or elegance. It  
can only be thought of relative to other designs. One design is more  
or less usable than another, based on the criteria one uses to assess  
usability. (Like performance, which is measured by "fast" or "slow",  
usability is measured my frustrating or delighting.)

Design (the verb) is an action (in contrast to design, the noun,  
which is a result of the action). You don't measure a design. You  
measure a design's qualities, like usability.

You'll notice, in my original post, that I used the term usability  
practice, which is a verb, like design. You *can* compare usability  
practice to design, though that's sort of like comparing eating to  
cooking. I'm not sure what the benefit of such a comparison would be.

What it sounds like you're trying to say is that somehow designers  
are more enlightened about good design than usability practitioners.  
I think this is a fallacious argument (and, to some, probably  
insulting).

Designers and usability practitioners have different roles in the  
design process and, when they work together well, they can produce  
amazing results. Of course, it takes little skill to do something  
poorly (damn, I really want to get that on a t-shirt), so when they  
work together poorly, which takes virtually no skill or effort, then  
the results are likely to be less-than-desirable.

I don't know what a "usability expert" is. (I've been called one, but  
there is so much I don't know about usability work that I don't know  
how the label applies to me.) However, when someone who thinks they  
understand how to make something more usable makes a suggest on  
changing a design, they are, in fact, designing. For the record,  
someone who knows nothing about making things more usable could just  
as easily make suggestions to improve the design. And they have an  
equal likelihood of being right.

When I said I was spending a lot of time thinking about the delight  
side of the equation, I wasn't so much thinking about the design of  
delightful things, but instead how we measure when we've achieved  
delight. Of course, I need to find things that purport to be  
delightful, so I can develop my measures and calibrate them, and that  
probably involves some sort of design.

However, I don't consider myself a designer. I consider myself a  
researcher. I don't design things, per se (though, as the owner of a  
small business, I do take part in the design of my own customer's  
experiences). I research how to effectively do great design. It's the  
difference between an artist and an art historian. I'm more of the  
latter -- I look at what's been done and try to apply models to  
assess its effectiveness.

Hope this helps clear up the confusion.

Jared


On Dec 18, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Murli Nagasundaram wrote:

> Jared, I realized after I hit 'Send' that I was danger of implying  
> that 'design = making things pretty' or something similar, but the  
> deed was done.  Design and Usability can be treated as:
>
> 1.  Two ends of a continuum/spectrum
> 2.  Two sides a coin
> 3.  Two intersecting circles in a Venn diagram
> 4.  
>
> Now, there is a wide variety of professions that use the term  
> 'designer' in their title, and these range from 'people who make  
> pretty things' to 'people who build railroad tracks' (to pick  
> something really mundane and far removed from art and prettiness).   
> Perhaps there's no need to make distinctions between Usability and  
> Design.  Then there's certainly no need to have two separate  
> professional associations (UPA and IxDA).  I know that this debate  
> has been going on for a while and probably will never be resolved,  
> or eventually become irrelevant.
>
> Now, coming to what 'Usable' means.  Does 'delight' also come under  
> the category?  If so, where do we draw the line?  Was the act of  
> designing a feature/attribute that caused 'delight'?  Let's take  
> response time --  say, I click on a link and the page comes up in 2  
> microseconds -- I'm delighted.  Does that make the site more  
> usable?  It certainly makes it more likely that I will click on  
> that link again.
>
> But delight is a general response to a variety of phenomena.  I see  
> something pretty, and I am delighted.  I learn that I don't have to  
> wait as long as I had anticipated and I am delighted.  The first  
> response was grounded in aesthetics, while the second was in  
> efficiency. My delight was a result of an absence of frustration.   
> The 'mere' elimination of frustration, pain, effort generates delight.
>
> When I, Usability Expert, advise a client to Do This In Order to  
> Make Your Site More Usable, am I providing Usability or Design  
> advice?  When you "spend a lot of time thinking about th

Re: [IxDA Discuss] The mighty UX guru has spoken - Discuss!!

[Jared M. Spool]

On Dec 18, 2007, at 8:16 AM, Murli Nagasundaram wrote:

> I hope I am making sense.

Hi Murli,

You are making sense.

However, you're not correct. In particular, this statement:

> Usability is about ensuring that your design is NOT BAD -- i.e.,  
> does not
> in any way impede, restrict, prevent, the user from accomplishing  
> her goals
> through using an artifact.

This is a limited viewpoint -- the equivalent of saying, "Design is  
about making things pretty," which we both know is not true.

Usability practice is about measuring how usable something is, on a  
scale from extreme frustration to extreme delight. Using the  
information gained through good usability practice, a designer can  
work to eliminate the user's frustration, then learn to enhance the  
user's delight.

I would agree that many usability practitioners focus primarily on  
frustration. The field is far more developed on that side of the  
problem. However, that behavior doesn't define the entire field of  
practice, nor does it define those usability practitioners who excel.

Some of us spend a lot of time thinking about the delight side of the  
equation and what designers can do to increase it.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks




*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Three kinds of design

[Jared M. Spool]

There's another reason, in addition to what Luke points out in his  
article:

Many users enter one of the components wrong. This is why the post  
office hasn't eliminated the redundancy on the envelope. It's not  
unusual for someone to get a digit wrong in the zip or to get the  
name of the town or state wrong. (People regularly confuse MS and MA  
or MA and MD, for example.)

By having both the zip & the city/state, both the system (with a  
decent address verification system) and the post office can do error  
correction.

Jared

On Dec 14, 2007, at 6:15 PM, Dmitry Nekrasovski wrote:

> Alan,
>
> This doesn't relate directly to your question, but Luke Wroblewski  
> has a
> recent blog post where he examines the pros and cons of the  
> approach you
> mention to collecting address information:
>
> http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?605
>
> Dmitry
>
> On Dec 14, 2007 2:27 PM, Alan Wexelblat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> A classic example here is entering mailing addresses into a form.  In
>> the US, having the Zip code uniquely identifies the state, and in  
>> over
>> 95% of cases allows you to know the town as well.  And yet, every
>> single form asks you for city, state, and then zip code.  Why?
>> Because it's not a differentiating feature.  Nobody cares that it's
>> 2/3 wasted effort on the user's part.  You have to have a way to
>> capture mailing addresses, but the usual interaction design goals
>> don't really apply here.  Just do it the standard way. (where here
>> "standard" really means "expected").
>>
>> Does this match up with your experiences?  Is there another major
>> category I'm missing that you find sucks up significant design cycles
>> on your projects?
>>
>> --Alan
>> 
>> *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
>> February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
>> Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
>>
>> 
>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>> List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
>>
> 
> *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
> February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
> Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
>
> 
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] New coming prototyping tool: Adobe Thermo

[Jared M. Spool]

On Dec 4, 2007, at 5:47 AM, Ferran Alvarez - BRYTE wrote:

> Quite often in this list the "prototyping tools" question is sent.   
> Maybe
> very soon we'll have another one to discuss: Adobe "Thermo":
> (http://www.adobe.com/newsletters/edge/december2007/video/index.html)

Oooh. Finally, a graphical version of Dan Bricklin's Demo!

:)

Jared

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 28, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Andrew Hinton wrote:

> The funny thing is, if you've ever imagined what it might be like to
> be your intended user trying to *use* the thing you're designing,
> you've done persona-based design.

Again, in an attempt to not overload terms, I'd say that isn't  
necessarily persona-based design. It is role playing, which is  
another important design technique and not mutually exclusive with  
persona-based design.

It would be a part of persona-based design if the intended user were  
using was a persona. If it's just someone you just made up in your  
head, then its just role-playing. (Both are valid techniques, but  
have different purposes.)

I would also say that persona-based design has many more activities  
than just role-playing.

Sorry for being the namespace police, but I think its to our  
community's advantage to have everyone using a common language.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks



*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 28, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:

> Incidentally, though, the use of personas didn't change the fact  
> that this went untouched for so long, and a decision to use  
> personas would not have made it happen any sooner. It only  
> addresses how the designer arrived at the new design once someone  
> finally decided to pay attention to the problem.

Actually, the way Deborah Adler (the designer) describes the  
discovery stage, she stumbled upon it accidentally when her  
grandmother accidentally took the wrong medication because the  
bottles were poorly labeled. Deborah then created several personas  
that she used throughout her reconceptualizing (which was for a  
school project).

As with many things, it wasn't a decision to use a particular design  
technique (personas) that inspired the innovation. It was just dumb  
luck. But the design techniques helped the designer move from a  
concept through production. (In this case, the personas were  
important because of all the different parts of the business that  
were involved.)

Are you thinking that I'm saying innovation only comes from personas?  
Because I'm not. Innovation and inspiration can come from almost  
anything.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks



*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 28, 2007, at 12:51 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:

>
> The upside-down pill bottle (Target's ClearRx), however, wasn't.  
> Deborah Adler had very clear personas in mind when creating her  
> remarkable game-changing design.
>
> But this is also a case where you could have arrived at the  
> solution without a persona, because you can become a SME on it  
> without talking to other users.

Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda.

Maybe you could have. But nobody did.

And the problem has been around for a really long time.

So, what does that mean?

:)

Jared

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 28, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:

> I'm not sure how documenting Joe the Occasional French Fry Eater  
> would help.
> (I know, I know, now all of you are going to say you wouldn't need  
> a persona
> in this case.)

And you know this because you have a good sense of our personas. :)

Never said you always had to use personas. I would agree that the  
upside down ketchup bottle is a persona-less design context.

The upside-down pill bottle (Target's ClearRx), however, wasn't.  
Deborah Adler had very clear personas in mind when creating her  
remarkable game-changing design.

Which I think is both of our points.

I'll be pleased if I don't have to talk about personas for a while  
either. :)

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Jared M. Spool]

ulate effort, skill, and luck. That's where something like a  
robust persona process comes in.

> Heck - you could barely find a company that does them *well* (only  
> 5% you say?), so how can you be such an advocate for their use?

Sturgeon's Revelation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law

When we start rating teams by the quality of the user experience they  
produce and we start comparing the methods the teams producing the  
best experiences use to the methods the other teams use, we see  
robust personas playing an important role. While most teams that  
claim they use personas basically do what people here have called  
"assumptive personas" or "ad-hoc personas" (hey, let's just write up  
a 2-page description of who we'd like our user to be), when we  
separate those out from the robust personas, you can see the  
difference in user experience quality.

That's why we're strong advocates of robust personas.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 27, 2007, at 8:07 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:
> I still don't buy there's anything to this activity-based design  
> stuff.
>
> Care to elaborate? You can't just spit out something like that and  
> run off. ;) What is it that bothers you about it?

I did elaborate when we talked about it here: http://ixda.org/ 
discuss.php?post=13134 (scroll down to December 26 at 2:44pm). My  
opinion hasn't changed in 11 months.

> In the end, it's all about having information to make informed  
> design decision, no matter what stupid label you apply to it.
>
> Agreed. But I'm afraid we need those labels in order to convince  
> the rest of the world - the part that still doubts the role of  
> interaction designers - that we know what we're doing and have  
> significant value. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree.

I don't think we need the labels to convince "the rest of the world."  
They don't care what we do, as long as we solve one of their five  
problems. (What five problems? Read Identifying the Business Value of  
What We Do at http://tinyurl.com/2dt8ne )

We need the labels so we know what the hell we're talking about when  
we talk amongst ourselves.

That said, I *still* don't think there's anything to this activity- 
based design stuff. I think there is stuff the team knows and there  
is stuff the team doesn't know. Sometimes, they know who their users  
are, but don't know much about the activities those users are engaged  
in. Sometimes they don't know who the users are.

I think (based on our research) that the top designers have a toolkit  
of techniques and tricks for gathering information and insight to  
fill in the gaps of what they know. Sometimes they'll focus on  
getting a clearer picture on the subtleties between the users.  
Sometimes they'll focus on learning more about the activities.

But I'm not bought into the notion there are a variety of  
methodologies that support one versus the other. In fact, I think  
it's dangerous for UX folks to get too wrapped up in any  
methodological notions. Techniques and tricks are where it's at.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks



*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 27, 2007, at 6:04 PM, Tamara Adlin wrote:

> Let the flames commence.

Nah, now we're just going in circles.

:)

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 27, 2007, at 5:28 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:

> Or ACD. :)
>
> As a profession, we need more choices. Rather, we need to *recognize*
> the choices that are already out there whether they fit into a UCD
> mold or not, and at least be willing to believe there is more than one
> way to skin the proverbial cat.

I still don't buy there's anything to this activity-based design  
stuff. (Of course, you'll never find me referring to anything as user- 
centered design, either.)

Good design is about understanding who you're designing for and what  
they are trying to do. Whether you focus on differences in the  
individual or differences in their goals/objectives/tasks/activities,  
is going to depend on the nature of the design project and what  
you're trying to accomplish.

In the end, it's all about having information to make informed design  
decision, no matter what stupid label you apply to it.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 27, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Jeff White wrote:

> If a persona is a process, not a deliverable, then maybe we should
> call it that. If it's a process, how's it any different from
> conducting interviews, observation, ethnography, etc?

To keep our terminology straight at UIE, we've labeled the process of  
creating personas as "persona creation". (We're not very  
imaginative.) The usual deliverables we call a "persona description"  
and a "persona reference card". The individual character is what we  
call the "persona". So, a persona project would have one persona  
creation process to produce 3 to 7 personas, each with a persona  
description.

The persona creation process includes a research stage, whereby a  
field study is the typical research instrument. (There is debate as  
to whether field studies are always ethnographic research or if  
ethnographic research is a variant of a field study. I don't think we  
want to split that hair at this point.)

However, the persona creation process, in our definition, includes  
three other stages: data analysis, persona and scenario deliverable  
creation, and project integration.

> But I disagree with Alan, Jared and Todd
> **if** they are proposing that personas are always useful and should
> always be done.


I've never said they are always useful and should always be done.  
They are a tool in the toolbox. Like any tool, they have their  
contexts where they are valuable. There are contexts where their  
value will not be worth the resource investment required.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 27, 2007, at 1:16 AM, Jeff White wrote:

> Also - unless there is a large design team which is separate from
> research staff, personas might not provide any extra value to those
> doing research + design. Chances are they'll acquire any knowledge
> from ethnography that a persona might provide and don't need the
> "report format" of a persona to refer to during design.

I'm not going to try to answer for Alan. (Did that once. Vowed to  
never do it again. :) ).

However, there are some factual inaccuracies with this paragraph I'd  
like to point out, having studied in-depth how teams are using personas.

Most of the teams we've studied who make the best use of personas are  
small -- typically 3-5 individuals on the core team. (We divide  
persona creation teams into a core team, who dedicate their resources  
to the project, and an auxiliary, who are important to the creation,  
but can't dedicate resources for more than a few hours a week.)  
Typically, the core team members do all the field research and, in  
many cases, each member visited the majority, if not all, of the  
field sites.

It is these smaller teams that we've found see the most benefit from  
a persona project. Larger teams, where many of the team members don't  
get direct access to the field visits seem to get less value. The big  
take away we've had is you are better off with everyone on the team  
having field access.

One of the problems of field research is the volume of raw data you  
collect. If you spend a reasonable time with the informant (what we  
call the participant in an ethnographic study), you'll collect a ton  
of information and artifacts. (A "reasonable time" is at least 90  
minutes, but often as long as 3 or 4 hours. For some projects, a day  
or two is warranted.)

Just because you have a ton of data doesn't mean you understand its  
implications or how it should influence the design. In fact, field  
research done well, in its early stage, will only confuse what you  
thought you knew. (Good research disorients before it reveals a  
direction.)

The value of the persona creation project is to provide a structured  
method of taking this chaotic data and bringing it to order. The  
teams in our research that got the most out of their persona projects  
spent a lot of time discussing and organizing the raw data. (On  
average, the analysis period is 125% of the field research time. A  
team that spent 6 days in the field would spend 8 or 9 days doing  
analysis.)

The "report format" (as you called it) is the deliverable known as  
the persona description. Our research shows this is the least  
valuable element of the process. (Yet, interestingly enough, it's  
seems to be what everyone who objects to personas focuses on.) As  
I've said before on this list, teams that make effective use of  
personas see this deliverable as a souvenir of their journey and  
don't give it a lot of weight. It's value is mostly for integration  
into the development process, to bring out during design and  
development discussions for "talking points".

You can have a very successful persona project without ever creating  
or using the persona description. (Successful, in our research, means  
the team rates it as being an essential process contributor to the  
success of the overall project.)

So, in fact, based on the research we've done, none of the statements  
in your paragraph prove to be true. Just wanted to point that out  
before we took them as fact.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Does eye-tracking carry any real meaning?(*edit)

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 26, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Ron Perkins wrote:

> Thanks for the observations on eye tracking, I've never used one  
> but suspected that they were a lot of work and
> offered wonderfully precise answers to the wrong questions.
>
> Hey, wasn't that line from a Pink Floyd tune?

Nope. Nilsson's The Point. (Excellent story, if you've never heard it.)

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks



*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Does eye-tracking carry any real meaning?(*edit)

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 25, 2007, at 9:47 PM, hanif o'neil wrote:

>  I would suggest that it has been through eye-tracking research  
> that this instance has been highlighted, e.g. Enquiro's discovery  
> of Google Search's "Golden Triangle," where users ignored ads along  
> the right scroll bar of the screen (in order to ignore that area of  
> the page users had to see it first).  Though, more important were  
> the areas of the page that users didn't ignore, supported not only  
> by heat-mapped impressions, but gaze patterns and click-throughs.

And observation and discussion with the user. Which is a lot cheaper.

>  If there is another technology that can do this please share?

Hah! *This* technology can't even do this.  There are three or four  
possible interpretations to eye tracking data that can take any  
analysis into completely different directions. Every eye tracker  
should have a sticker saying "Just add meaning."

As the Rock Man said, "You see what you want to see and you hear what  
you want to hear." (I'll send a UI12 Conference CD to the first  
person who can correctly identify *that* reference. Google is  
cheating. :) )

It's all based on interpretation. The "Enquiro Discovery" wasn't a  
discovery at all -- it was something many of us already had known  
through our work without the use of eye tracking. At best, eye  
tracking just confirms what we already know.

Look, you can use whatever tools you want. Hell, use a Magic 8-Ball  
[1] for all I care. (Can you say, "Outlook not so good"?) If you get  
mileage from it, go for it. If it improves your design, all the best  
to ya.

I'm still avoiding eye tracking for diagnosing problems with designs  
because I find it to be practically useless. And I'm recommending our  
clients do the same.

Jared

p.s. I'm seriously considering putting a "23 Web Site Design Tips  
Learned from the Magic 8-Ball" post together.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_8-Ball

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks





*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Does eye-tracking carry any real meaning?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 24, 2007, at 3:18 PM, Hanif O'Neil wrote:

> This data does not offer feedback on whether a
> design is good or not, instead it provides an understanding of how
> well a design functioned: Did users see specific content or links?
> And how long did it take them to see them in the interface?  Or from
> an analysis perspective: Are users' click patterns consistent to
> their gaze pattern?  What section of the page is experiencing a
> considerable drop-off rate?

Unfortunately, this is a common misperception of eye-tracking. It  
doesn't actually tell you any of those things.

It doesn't tell you what the user sees or doesn't see.

It only tells you, when calibrated well (something that's often not  
done), where the user eye focuses. It's common for a user to focus  
their eye on something and not see it. It's also common for a user to  
see things they never focus on.

So, all you can tell is where the center of the retina pointed. And,  
from a design standpoint, this tells you practically nothing.

Any inferences drawn from eye tracking data are influenced almost  
100% from the inferrer. If a user gazes at a point on the screen for  
a long period (whatever a "long period" is deemed to be), are they  
gazing their because they are interested in that spot? Or because it  
confused them? If they don't gaze at another point, is it because  
they didn't see it? Or because they processed it from their  
peripheral vision (or out of a focal area which is much wider than  
the pixel point indicated by the eye tracker).

In my opinion, eye tracking a few advantages and a lot of  
disadvantages. It doesn't tell design teams anything they couldn't  
learn some other, far less expensive way. We regularly recommend our  
clients avoid investing in it, stating its a waste.

Though, an eye tracker is cheaper than hiring a staff psychic, so if  
those are your only two choices, I'd go with the eye tracker purely  
to save money.

Jared

p.s. At UIE, we've been using eye trackers since 1996, so I do have  
some experience with the tool. It's a great cognitive research tool,  
but just not something we'd recommend for anyone doing production  
design.

p.p.s. We haven't used psychics extensively, so I may be over  
estimating their usefulness.

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks



*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Does eye-tracking carry any real meaning?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 21, 2007, at 7:04 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:

>> -Eye tracking can be useful for diagnosing problems, not so much for
>> identifying them.
>
>
> That's an interesting point. It does seems like eye-tracking would be
> infinitely more valuable when used in conjunction with other things  
> - like a
> more traditional test.

Just like astrology.

Jared



*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] What tools do you use for prototyping?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 19, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Mike Scarpiello wrote:

> Agreed - always is a strong word.

Is it always a strong word?

(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

Jared

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 19, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Jeff White wrote:

> Also, how relevant is the information? What design decision would you
> make based on the following information from the persona?
>
> "He doesn't suffer fools, just as he won't put up with anything that
> stands in the way of getting his job done."
>
> I realize part of the perceived value of personas is the narrative. I
> do think, as someone in this thread suggested, that formatting the
> data in more of an outline format - headings, bullets, etc - removing
> some fluff, would go a long way towards getting people to actually
> consume the data.
>
> If I'm expected to constantly refer back to a document when I'm
> designing something, then don't format the thing so it takes 10
> minutes to read, and you have to sift through long paragraphs of
> content to find valuable info.

When building personas, we recommend to our clients they build two  
versions: (1) a narrative 2-page description and (2) a short  
reference-card version (one flap of a tri-fold, so you can get 3  
personas on the same page).

The bullets are useful for outlining the distinguishing elements of a  
given persona (what makes this person different from others?).  
However, the narrative is also important because, since the point of  
the persona creation process is to make these people as real as  
possible, stories do a better job of creating real characters in our  
minds than lists of bullets.

When we guide our clients on how to build the narratives, we tell  
them that every sentence should have a clear implication on the  
design. The sentence you quoted:

> "He doesn't suffer fools, just as he won't put up with anything that
> stands in the way of getting his job done."

doesn't really meet that criteria, since it's not clear how this will  
impact the design, other than to say it needs to be efficient in its  
communication. (It implies a High-D personality, if you're familiar  
with the DiSC model.) There are probably better ways to state this  
where the implication is clearer.

Recently, I was showed a persona from a client with this text:

> Amy lives with her boyfriend Tom in a two-bedroom apartment with  
> his French bulldog Milo. She moved into his place last year right  
> after they got engaged. They're not calling the new arrangement a  
> trial, but they know that living together will test their  
> relationship and say a lot about their compatibility.

At first glance, this seems also to be frivolous. Why do we care  
about when she moved in or what the dog's name is?

However, this is for an application in the home improvement market  
(can't say any more). The tenuousness of the relationship, the fact  
that improvement projects and supplies need to be pet-friendly, and  
the fact that it's not *her* apartment does dictate her attitudes  
towards improvement projects.

For example, later in the description is this sentence: "Knowing that  
the apartment is transitional prevents her from getting too caught up  
in all the things she hates about it: the leaky faucet, the  
particleboard and laminate cabinets in the kitchen, and the white  
walls throughout." A designer of a home improvement resource could  
easily imagine providing Amy with resources to help her make quick,  
inexpensive, and potentially movable fixes to her temporary living  
space.

One could put this type of content into bullets:

+ Recently engaged
+ Lives in boyfriend's apartment
+ Doesn't make changes because they will move soon

You can decide which one helps you better internalize the character,  
such that you can role play Amy's life and decision making processes.

When done well (and it always come down to the quality of the  
process), the narrative can be a very powerful for many people.

Jared



*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 17, 2007, at 12:33 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:

> And sure, if they went through the
> research, that's fine, but it's simply impractical to ask companies
> to send 20 person design teams on a research project. 2-5 is often
> the most anyone can afford, even large companies like Microsoft and
> Adobe. If that is the case, it is my opinion that the deliverable is
> *vital* to the success of the entire process.

It's funny, because the same companies won't think twice about  
sending 400 salespeople to a week of golfing in Palm Springs under  
the guise of a sales meeting.

In fact, I was just at the Adobe MAX conference where they had 1600  
employees on what I estimated to be about a $8 million event.

So, I'm thinking they could take 1% of that budget and put it towards  
decent customer research, they'd see huge improvements.

Oh, and by the way, companies like Intuit *do* send their entire  
engineering departments on that kind of research regularly. So, it is  
proven to be practical.

:)

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks



*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Jared M. Spool]

[Note, I've combined comments from Andrei, Robert, and Jeff into one  
message so I don't fill up everyone's mailbox.]

On Nov 16, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Jared M. Spool wrote:
>
>> First, personas *are* already successful. Many teams are using them
>> and getting great value out of them. They are not in general use,
>> but they are being applied in many applications and seeing much
>> success, by many different metrics.
>
> Many teams versus a well established, industry standard practice are
> different things in my opinion. I think there's a quite a large chasm
> between the two right now when there probably shouldn't be.

With that criteria, why are you picking on personas? Practically  
every modern design technique falls into this distinction, including  
user-centered design and agile methods. There are no 'industry- 
standard practices', short of build-it-and-ship-it.

In our research, we look at organizations who are trying to produce  
great user experiences. We rate the projects on a scale representing  
who is doing better at this goal than others. Then we look to the  
techniques and practices they employ.

What we've found is, while 'personas' are used throughout the entire  
spectrum, what we call 'robust personas' are typical in projects on  
the higher end of our success scale. These teams are using these  
techniques to inform their design process and producing great designs  
as a result.


On Nov 16, 2007, at 6:04 PM, Robert Barlow-Busch wrote:
> In the end, personas are just a report format. Or if you hate  
> reports (and
> who doesn't?), think of them as a communications channel.
>
> I cringe when people talk about needing personas. No you don't! You  
> need the
> particular *insights* communicated by personas, insights about goals,
> behaviors, and context. If you don't need those insights (perhaps  
> because
> you're the customer and can design for yourself), then forget  
> personas.

Robert is correct in that it's mostly about insights. But the  
insights aren't delivered by the persona description document. The  
insights come from the process in its entirety. (As an aside, in our  
work, we think personas are more than for insights, because the team  
may need them just to confirm hunches and beliefs they already have.  
If the team designs a quality experience without gaining new insights  
from the persona creation process, we still consider it successful.)

I disagree with Robert's assertion that personas are "just a report  
format." Robust personas are a technique for getting the team on the  
same page about who their designing for and the goals, behaviors, and  
contexts they need to consider to create a successful experience.  
Like any design research technique, it's inevitably about informing  
the design process.

Yet, we've found many teams, like Robert, believe personas *are* just  
a report format. Teams that believe this, in our research, rarely  
succeed at designing great experiences for their users. (Similarly,  
they often believe requirements documents, market statements, and  
other written deliverables are just report formats too and fail to  
get the potential value from those deliverables too.)

This is why I think looking at the final persona description document  
doesn't tell the entire story. It's a design souvenir that  
represents, in the mind of the team, the journey they've been on. You  
can't judge the magnificence of the Eiffel Tower from a postcard.


On Nov 17, 2007, at 5:40 AM, Jeff Patton wrote:
> Jared wrote:
>> In every description I've ever read of creating personas (yours,
>> Cooper's, Pruitt & Adlin's, Gomoll & Story's, and Mulder's are the
>> first to come to mind), they all go into great depth about the data
>> collection and synthesis methods. I've never seen a persona creation
>> description that just said, "It's ok to just write up what you think
>> your users are like based on your experience and gut feel." (Andrea
>> Wiggins' latest Boxes and Arrows article [http://tinyurl.com/33hrta]
>> comes close, but claims to be data backed under the guise that
>> analytics are useful data points.)
>
> What about Norman's article: http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/ 
> personas_empath.html
> where he writes:
> "As a consultant to companies, I often find myself having to make  
> my points
> quickly -- quite often in only a few hours. This short duration  
> makes it
> impossible to have any serious attempt to gather data or use real
> observations. Instead, I have found that people can often mine  
> their own
> extensive exper

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 16, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:

> On Nov 16, 2007, at 1:41 PM, Jared M. Spool wrote:
>
>> You can't look at the deliverables and say, "That one's good, but
>> that one's bad," anymore than you look at a designer and tell, just
>> by looks, if he has talent or not.
>>
>> The only way to see a well-crafted persona would be to have the
>> creators walk through their process with you. That's probably why,
>> when you look at the final deliverable, you can't tell the thinking
>> and research that went into it.
>
> If that's the stance people who push for personas as a useful part of
> the design process, then personas will continue simply fail. Design
> and research deliverables have to stand on their own, without some
> person explaining to you want went into it, or how it should be used
> to help someone do their work. Until more folks find a way to make
> deliverables that stand alone, then things like personas won't be
> very useful.

Aw, come on, Andrei. That's just crap (with all due respect).

First, personas *are* already successful. Many teams are using them  
and getting great value out of them. They are not in general use, but  
they are being applied in many applications and seeing much success,  
by many different metrics.

Second, design deliverables are written for a specific audience: the  
design team. It's never expected that they have value to others  
outside the team. A wireframe created for a specific team is often  
meaningless to those outside. Same with specifications and often even  
prototypes. Much happens *between the lines* in conversations and  
shared experiences.

To say that we have to make our within-team deliverables "stand  
alone" without the context of the design project is just silly.

There are some excellent writeups of the persona process and it's  
potential deliverables. I'm a big fan of both Steve Mulder's The User  
is Always Right and Pruitt & Adlin's The Persona Lifecycle. Both do a  
quality job of showing the process and the deliverables, in my opinion.

Cooper's Kim Goodwin has presented a quality workshop on the subject,  
as have Kate Gomoll and Ellen Story. There's no lack of good examples  
floating around out there -- you're just not trying hard to look at  
them.

One could just as easily argue that Dreyfuss's 17-page example is  
excessive. If he can't do it in 2 pages, then no one will ever pay  
attention to him. But, they don't, because that's just crap too.

Third, in our research, the failed attempts at using personas  
(projects where the persona process never finishes or doesn't have an  
impact on the final design), doesn't come because people don't see  
the value. On the contrary, they saw tremendous value from the get-go.

Instead the primary causes of failure is (a) a lack of robustness in  
the underlying research and analysis or (b) a poorly-executed  
integration with the existing development process. In either of these  
cases, the persona write-up factored very little. In fact, none of  
the failed projects we uncovered were caused because the deliverable  
poorly designed or failed to "stand on its own."

So, before you start proclaiming what will or won't factor in the  
adoption of personas, I suggest you do a little homework on how teams  
actually use these techniques.



*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 16, 2007, at 3:46 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:

> Anyone want to post an example of a "properly" done persona. I think
> if you did, it would make the problem easier to resolve.

As I wrote here: http://tinyurl.com/2675lg

The quality of a persona shows in how it manifests itself in the way  
it influences the design team to make smart decisions.

You can't look at the deliverables and say, "That one's good, but  
that one's bad," anymore than you look at a designer and tell, just  
by looks, if he has talent or not.

The only way to see a well-crafted persona would be to have the  
creators walk through their process with you. That's probably why,  
when you look at the final deliverable, you can't tell the thinking  
and research that went into it.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 16, 2007, at 9:34 AM, Jeff White wrote:

> So, when the personas are not built on objective research, they are  
> not correct and thus not helpful.

When personas are not built on objective research, they are built on  
pre-existing knowledge and guesswork. They may or may not be correct.  
They may or may not be helpful.

The problem is that you don't know. By having the research, you have  
supporting evidence behind the concepts in the personas.

(Personally, I believe when personas are not built on objective  
research, they aren't personas -- they are something else. However, I  
got flack for this idea when I posted it here: http://tinyurl.com/ 
yuzaak )

> Seems like common sense that designers wouldn't need a persona of  
> themselves if they are building for, well, themselves.

Common sense is the least common of the senses, when it comes to design.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Jared M. Spool]

I think what Alan was trying to say is this:

Personas are a tool for helping a team understand better who their  
key users are and what those users need from the design.

If the team already understands this, then they don't need personas.

One context where a team may already understand this is when they are  
designing for themselves. In this case, personas won't add much value.

(I wrote more about this here: http://tinyurl.com/2hpxzr )

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks

On Nov 16, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Jeff White wrote:

> I took it that way too, Jim.
>
> Kind of like asking a pizza guru when pizza wouldn't be the ideal meal
> to consume, and she goes "when it's not made right". :-)
>
> Jeff
>
> On Nov 16, 2007 12:43 AM, Jim Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 13, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Alan Cooper wrote:
>>
>>>  The place where personas would not be useful is where the  
>>> persona is
>>> elaborate camouflage for a designer creating self-referential
>>> solutions.
>>> In other words, personas help designers design for users. When
>>> personas
>>> are used to help designers design for themselves instead, that would
>>> be bad.
>>
>> That's where poorly created personas aren't useful, not where  
>> personas
>> in general aren't useful, no?


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful

[Jared M. Spool]

In every description I've ever read of creating personas (yours,  
Cooper's, Pruitt & Adlin's, Gomoll & Story's, and Mulder's are the  
first to come to mind), they all go into great depth about the data  
collection and synthesis methods. I've never seen a persona creation  
description that just said, "It's ok to just write up what you think  
your users are like based on your experience and gut feel." (Andrea  
Wiggins' latest Boxes and Arrows article [http://tinyurl.com/33hrta]  
comes close, but claims to be data backed under the guise that  
analytics are useful data points.)

So, I don't know why, all of a sudden, there's this pushback to call  
non-data-driven user descriptions personas. They feel like something  
else entirely to me.

Jared

On Nov 16, 2007, at 10:46 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel wrote:

> Couldn't agree more with this. Which is exactly why we do data- 
> driven personas.
>
> Data Driven Design Research Personas
>
> On Nov 16, 2007, at 10:01 AM, Jared M. Spool wrote:
>
>> (Personally, I believe when personas are not built on objective
>> research, they aren't personas -- they are something else. However, I
>> got flack for this idea when I posted it here: http://tinyurl.com/
>> yuzaak )
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> Todd Zaki Warfel
> President, Design Researcher
> Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
> --
> Contact Info
> Voice:(215) 825-7423
> Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> AIM:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
> --
> In theory, theory and practice are the same.
> In practice, they are not.
>
>
>


*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] what are your fundamental tenets of design?

[Jared M. Spool]

On Nov 12, 2007, at 6:46 PM, Jared M. Spool wrote:

> It takes no skill to build something stupid.

Oh, I just remembered another one:

The good thing about users is eventually they die.

(I really need to get some t-shirts made.)




*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help