The six disciplines of User Experience

As envisioned by Donald Norman and inspired by his book "The invisible computer".
The following skills are required for building the best user experience into a product (could be any product from hi-tech to manufacturing)

1. Field studies - Observing potiential users doing their tasks in their normal settings. Skills require careful and systematic observation and usually come from the fields of anthropology and sociology.
2. Behavioral designers - People who create a cohesive model for the product based on a detailed task analysis of the users. They mesh the task requirements with the skills and capabilities of the intended users and this model becomes the basis for engineering design.
   Skills required for this come from the cognitive science and experimental psychology.
3. Model builders - People who rapidly build prototypes and product mock-ups that can be tested even before the real technology is ready. Skills for this usually come from people with a designing and programming background (information architects) and architecture and industrial design.
4. User testers - These people are usually involved in performing usability and feasibility studies. Through rapid user-testing studies , they enable to iterate through designs in order to meet the real needs of the users. Skills for this come from experimental psychology.
5. Graphical and industrial designers - At this stage, the aesthetics of the product are brought in through people who have experience in graphical and industrial design, and the "joy" and "pleasure" of using the product come into picture. Not only must the product designed merge the conceptual model and behavioral aspects but it must also meet varoius requirements of technology. These skills are usually brought in by people from schools of art, design and architecture.
6. Technical writers - The goal of these people should be to show the technologists how to build things that do not require manuals. However in the real world scenario, they are usually brought in after the product is built and are asked to write usage manuals. The technical writers should be able to understand the audience, what the intended users require of the product and how they can go about getting their tasks done through the product. The technical writers should be an integral part of the development team, so that the product is built so well that no instruction manual will be required.

So here's the deal, in a typical technology product, there is no luxury of time to go about doing all the above mentioned steps and in many cases some of the steps can't be executed because the target audience characteristic is too far and wide.

What do you think is the best model that can work for a typical web based application scenario in order to make sure that the real needs of the user are met ?

Feature Design Open Challenge

What goes on in your mind when someone says Library Management System? You usually dust it off with "College project", "Oh, no! Not another" (even "fake resume"). True, designing or developing library applications is treated like a Hello world problem for spec creation, feature breakup, OO design and development. It is a rat trap, a wheel, that someone is always reinventing.

Why am I writing about it then?

I discovered this wonderful feature as I was looking for a book at my local public library. (See highlight below).



There, amongst all the actions/searches clutter (we'll discuss the form design later) was a "Nearby items on shelf".

The closest one could come to actually browsing books in the library. I'm sure you have spent enough time in libraries and bookstores browsing shelves to know how valuable that is to discovering books. Translate this into online KPIs - more time spent on the site, potentially more transactions.

The more I thought about it, the more I realize that designing (I include spec-ing) this feature isn't straightforward - it isn't a "find more in category" or "more by this author". It could be as simple as a list of next accession numbers or as complex as a recommendation engine (a virtual shelf opens up possibilities).

So here's the Open Challenge: How would you design this feature? What would your search results show, how would you arrange the shelves and how would you handle special cases? The best idea gets a Barnes and Noble (for US residents) or a Crossword (India) gift card.

Twitter poster mashup

Nice concept ! The new Twitter poster from Spanish company Come n Click Networks provides a mashup of Twitter users sized relatively to the influence of each Twitter user, based on the number of followers and the number of Tweets the populars make.

These posters are now available for the United States, Japan, Brazil, United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, Australia, Italy, Mexico, Canada, France and Taiwan, in addition to a global poster on the front page. Now this is a nice concept and goes to show how mashups can surface up a lot of important information.

However I wonder what would be the real usefulness of something like. It's eye candy! yes, no doubt about that, but could this lead to a digg style user rating mechanism in Twitter ?

How do you think this can be leveraged and can you build a business idea through this mashup ?

The problem of Destroying the Web 2.0 look

I stumbled upon this piece of writting from Elliot Jay Stocks, a reputed designer and a popular speaker here. It's a good take on approaching differentiation through design and he outlines the reasons we go wrong when designing the Web 2.0 look. It's a good read and I would encourage you to look at it.

His basic analysis is that
1. The design elements are getting repetative leading to a cliched look
2. Web 2.0 may seem like an aesthetic relook at UX but in reality , it is far beyond just design.

Therefore, we need to approach design differently and match elements to context. Ergo, destroy the Web 2.0 look and go for designs that stand out.

I have a couple of problem accepting this analysis.

But before that, let me outline why I think it would have resonated immediately with lot of readers, including me.
1. It is easy to sympathize with a non conformist POV because it plays into the my need for a new perspective, little spice, more variety, leftist titillations etc.
2. It is easy to poke a hole or two , easier than engineering a whole new look at any rate. Hell, even Shilpa Shetty and Microsoft are objects of hatred in some communities !

Having said that, this is my take on the analysis.

1. It comes across as more of a bored yawn than an invigorating contra point. What he is doing is pointing out standard design tenets and expecting the audience to realize their folly. Imagine if I wrote a similar presentation saying all wheels are round and hence conclude that GM ought to think out of the box henceforth. Point is these design concepts work and users love it. I will keep my friendly bevel, seductive shadow and pleasing pastels over DOS teletype and Roadrash colors. Thanks for the progress.
2. His counter example about ‘big name designers’ are outright shallow. A > they are not big name web apps company; B > the UX examples propped up are cluttered , punkish, dirty, hurried and unfriendly, to say the least.
3. His suggestion that over usage makes the look clichéd begs the wheel example once more. If something works, I would rather use it than be left looking like Australopithecus. That’s the reason to use it and that’s the technique to ape as well. Big designers can have their field day trying out cutting edge revolutionary concept but if their evening wear, plastic bridal wear and horrendous page layouts are anything to go by, thank you once again.
4. His conceptual defense is valid and so are his conclusions. Some do think that it’s all about the look and there is some need for education. But that is a minority segment. For the rest Web 2.0 means more about community than anything else. And as long as we design for that , all other goals are secondary.

He makes the point about understanding what concepts work in which context. Well, the very design concepts he picks on works brilliantly in Web 2.0 context (if user adaptation numbers and usage frequency are anything to go by). It’s more worthwhile to try being original/creative in solving the business problem you had set out to design a solution for than spending your money on big name designers to create a Jackson Pollock. Spare the poor users and spare my bevel edged pastel shaded shadows.

Life is good. I see a subtle outer glow.

User Experience on a Corporate Website

Corporate websites can be the most non-interactive places on the internet. They consist of mostly static pages, and the way designers make them interesting for readers is by considering the choice of colors, layout (how much text where), graphics, Flash and the like.

Now, take a look at this, taken from a corporate website.



Each page (other than the home page), has this little form (6 fields, 3 mandatory) tucked away on the right. So imagine users browsing the site and reading about the company - the minute they see something interesting, they can request to be contacted right away.

Without navigating away.
Without losing context.
Without having to search for a "Contact Us" page.
Without it being in your face.

Eliminating these hassles would also result in more people actually filling up the form. Which means more leads. More sales. More revenue.

When was the last time you looked at your corporate website to provide a better User Experience? Mea Culpa. Off I go now.

Citibank Secure Login and Payment Facility

This is Citibank’s login page.
For the sake of security, Citibank thought it was a better idea to click on a keypad rather than the good old style of typing in a password for authentication.

This seemed like a neat concept if I had Private Banking in mind (Banking in Citibank Kiosks or someplace like that) But I don’t think this is really secure considering I’m at open cyber cafe and clicking on this keypad (giving anyone crossing my desk to take a peek at my monitor and guess my password).

Wasn’t typing the password using a keyboard a better idea?? Considering my hands is covering the keyboard reducing the chances for anyone to guess my password.

Citibank has a feature “View and Pay”. This feature helps make paying monthly utility bills a lot easier. The bill account details need to be entered once and then a message and email is sent to the user every month for a payment confirmation.

It’s pretty convenient, but there is no way of canceling a payment.

For example, I have my telecom provider registered with Citibank. I pay the bill through the website every time. But, this one time, I paid the bill when I was at the Telecom store and not through the website. After the payment was done, it did not reflect on my website. It still asked me to pay my bill I had already paid for. If a user makes a payment through the website once, they assume that he is going to do the same every time, not handling multiple payment methods.

Do you guys have any comments???

(Written after discussion and inputs from Nikhil Chandran)