NetLife Research is a Norwegian based User Experience design and consulting firm. For the last couple of years they have been releasing a bad usability calendar which is meant to show examples of bad UX and usability.
This year's calendar has great examples of exaggerated use of web 2.0 design,social bookmarking proliferation, drop down menus, message feeds etc.
You can download this year's calender here.
Interesting way to portray UX and design bloopers!
Great piece of news to kick the new year off :
Fresh from Ajaxworld News Desk: 2008 Prediction: "The User Experience (UX) Meme Will Reach the Enterprise" — In SYS-CON's annual round-up of technology predictions, Brad Abrams, a Group Program Manager at Microsoft, highlighted the likelihood of what he called 'the UX meme of the consumer facing world [leaking] into the enterprise' and noted: 'The days of the battleship gray, forms of data application as the king of the enterprise are numbered because of an imperative towards richer visualization of complex and interconnected data. While there will always be a need for the traditional sort of application, by the end of 2008, it is no longer the only element of the corporate landscape.'
But then, we saw it coming for a long time. Thanks Brad.
I would like to take this argument a little further to another natural extension , yet long overdue rethink on UX in the enterprise context. Bear with me. This might test your patience and mental image of the UX meme.
Think enterprise UX and a strong association with enterprise software automatically emerges. Enterprise software with battleship gray and passport registration forms variety. A mother ship software orchestrating faceless departmental warriors and well oiled processes to get things done the way your TQM charged COO prescribed it. Or the one your CTO from DOS/mainframe generation felt 'fits the bill'. And in case your CXO comes from the Led Zep fan base ( count yourself lucky), you might get a blog or two, pastel grey shadows and maybe even an internal portal for free exchange of ideas and movie tickets. Life is good. So, in this year, expect major UX related investment to repaint your mothership or expect to see your cool dude CXO to be featured as Time magazine’s person of the year for revolutionary thinking.
So what's that got to do with UX as we know it ? Couple of key things are horribly wrong in the above imagery :
1. The very definition of UX in enterprise context - that's a semi metaphysical point.
2. The implication of UX in enterprise context - the hard hitting, almost physical point.
#1 : Forgive me this digression but enterprises ( and all associated paraphernalia like process, people, promotions) exist for delivering value to clients/customers. So, by definition, UX in this context too might just anchor around them. Fixing enterprise software UX is a worthy pursuit( about time too) but it goes far beyond that. I would like to believe that the U in UX for enterprise refers to the customers and that's what the UX design should focus on. So, you accept the point and you build your flagship product with kickass UX designed in. Good, you are already in a progressive minority. But what if your product is essentially a service ? Now, you are one amongst 90% of all listed business. Bad place to get stumped. Ergo : Think hard and think differently. Then the problem statement for UX in your enterprise reads [How do I design for UX in my client facing services ?]. It's a fundamental shift in UXthink in the enterprise context. A. It has got very little to do with products .B. It has got a lot to do with people who do not use your enterprise IT. Fix the internal ERP and CRM UX and you have essentially designed for the wrong set of users! Enterprise SOA is good, single sign on is smart, knowledge wikis are cool but they are not an end in themselves. They exist to deliver something else to someone outside your org boundary.
#2 : If you did accept my point above, we have agreed to look at designing a customer experience around your service. Now, that's something that has very fluid boundaries. You might look at it as a buy-sell experience and be done. Or you might look at it as creating a lasting partnership. Not that one is better than the other though lot of gurus have extreme opinions about it. That's beside the point. What matters is your customer's experience during each and every contact. What one might call moment's of truth. The mad minute when all he has read and heard about you is forgotten and all that matters is the specific experience during that call/meeting/handshake. Moment's of truth can be physical, remote or anywhere in the space time continuum [linkedin profile, blog posts, website popups, office design, the lady in your reception, even your office fire escape ! Yeah, we had one customer checking that out too !].
That’s a pretty hard nut to crack. For starters it is an open ended problem. And it is an all pervasive challenge. Think of it this way. Your top 10 customers meet your CEO once a month/quarter depending on how big you are. So, that’s 1 moment of truth delivered flawlessly by an experienced champion. But the same client talks to your helpdesk thrice every day, meets your project lead once a day, accesses your invoice systems once a month, reads the change request form once a fortnight and it may not even be the same guy who is doing all this. Hence the number of ‘moments of truth’ are order of magnitude higher. Is the enterprise UX designed to make life easy for him ? How do you fix them one experience at a time for the organization you belong to ? Can we define workflows, persona, experience skins or do rapid protos ? Whose responsibility is it anyway ?
If you belong to the overwhelming majority who delivers services for a living , how do you think beyond products and apply the concepts to intangibles ? And oh, do fix that internal ERP UX while you are at it.
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 ?
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.
This video's been doing the rounds recently. Based on Billy Joel's classic "We didn't start the fire", this takes off on the current Web 2.0 trends. Whether or not you agree there is a bubble waiting to burst, this video is fun to watch. I just hope Matt (the creator of the video) doesn't get into legal problems for IPR violation. Enjoy while its still available.
Update: This video has been removed. According to YouTube, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by a third party." Told you so ;)
The fires continue to burn in Southern California. Over 500,000 people have been evacuated, 1000+ homes destroyed. I know of people who had packed and were ready to leave. This pic, taken 2 days ago, is at Foothill Ranch, about 20 miles south of where I live.
Why am I posting this here? Because, Web 2.0 did its bit to keep people informed.
A live Google Maps mashup of the fires. Probably a hundred refreshes from my computer alone.
Twitter updates: (likely that more feeds were following it)
YouTube Videos:
Flickr
The San Diego fire wiki came to the assistance of the worst affected area. About 400,000 people were evacuated from their homes.
A media major like the Union Tribune preferred using a blog for updates rather than their own website which would have carried other news.
These are just a few examples. I haven't even looked at Facebook. I am certain that more bloggers, vloggers and podcasters would have posted content all over the Internet. (US, at least.)
When technology becomes a part of life, it ceases to be technology. (somebody else said that, not me.)
p.s.: the numbers quoted here are likely to change. Please rely on official sources for exact figures.
Happened today, its likely that you have already read about it.
img courtesy: jaiku
Here's some FAQ&A on the deal and its implications.
Q: Why not Twitter?
A: Google probably thinks Twitter is overvalued (at USD 20 million). It is likely that they spent lesser on the Jaiku deal. Twitter recently closed a USD 5 million second round. And it is in Europe (read: ahead of the US on mobile technology adoption).
Q: But Twitter has more users, is more popular?
A: Sure, but Jaiku is more than just a micro-blogging or lifestreaming platform. It is an intelligent presence detection application, with their smart address book feature. Google is acquiring technology again, they can generate the user numbers, I suppose.
Q: Where does this all fit in the biG picture?
A: The New York Times reported yesterday that Google phone project is a mobile software project. So whether the Google offering competes with Microsoft (Windows Mobile) or Apple (iPhone) remains to be seen, but in the light of this, the Jaiku acquisition seems to make sense. A mobile software (platform, most likely) + mobile technology from Jaiku + mobile social network Zingku to promote it. All the right conditions for Google to continue to govern your life.
Q: Google, Social Networking? Remember Orkut, Dodgeball? Why will they take on Facebook and MySpace?
A: Because they are Google. Their social networking attempts have not taken off well - at least in the US - but there are rumors that there may be a third life (or should it be second, second life?) in the wings. Although Jaiku fits in nicely with their mobile strategy, its lifestreaming features is a ammunition for any Social Networking War (what an Oxymoron!) that it may be gearing up for.
Afterthought: MS should really buy that stake in Facebook.
What do you think?
or, The Three Little Pigs: Then and Now.
"C'mon, its almost English**!" said the PGM pig. "We could all finish up before the Big Bad Wolf came, and go home."<Button>Control.Background PE
<Control.Background>
<LinearGradientBrush StartPoint="0,0" EndPoint="1,1">
<GradientStop Color="Yellow" Offset="0.0" />
<GradientStop Color="LimeGreen" Offset="1.0" />
LinearGradientBrush>
Control.Background>
Button>
The Expression around the clock event happened yesterday in Bangalore at Fuga, a cool venue for an even cooler event. This was a global designer conference(taking place simultaneously in 10 venues around the globe) aptly themed “Design is back!”
The event started with out with registration, Microsoft had a very strict registration and confirmation process for this event and inspite of that the place was packed with people. There were about 200 people and seating was available only for about 70 people.
The event kicked off with a keynote from Shelly Armstrong of the Microsoft Design team. Shelly has been involved in various projects in Microsoft, including the interaction design for the XBox and the Zune. Her talk was totally targeted towards designers and tips on improving UX, design, importance of keeping up with latest trends, networking etc.
After this there was a break, with the bar being opened up [:)]. There was more action ahead though. The next session was by Supreet Singh, an UX designer and Pandurang, a dev. They started out with a desinger dev duel and demostrated how Expression Studio supported the designer-dev collaboration with ease. This was pretty interesting, with Surpreet putting in a video on to his canvas and then Pandurang writing a bit of code for the play and pause functionality.
The dev, (as they put it, didn’t have much idea about UX) and hence he puts up text messages for play and pause. Surpreet then takes this XAML and immediately ports this message into a cool button.
The next part was demos - impressive stuff overall, though I had seen most of them before. The demo which impressed me the most, was the one of a Silverlight video player being able to play 10 high definition videos simultaneously with ease, and the ability for the user to seamless switch between them with no system overload.
Post this was the usual networking session (with more beers though!). Met a couple of interesting people and managed to market our UX blog. People seemed to be very interested by this, especially because we are not a design only firm.(Thanks Ram ! for mentioning our blog in your post.)
At the end, Microsoft gave away a goodie bag to each participant. It had a 60-day trial of the Expression Studio, a design magazine and a Reebok t-shirt!.
The new age web sites/applications (the so called web 2.0) have all evolved for good and one of the many things which have changed for good is the copy writing for error message or in that case any message. I think it’s the advent of blogging which made the web world change the attitude towards its communication to users. They chose to speak the human language as the new web considers the users as an integral part of their growth. Most of the services go live and is thrown open to users before being steady and the developers fine tune the performance according to the user’s feedback. There are more instances of the services being down every now and then but what I have noticed is that, the users have become calm. And its only coz the users are made to know what exactly is the reason behind the downtime. It’s all about transparency. You let your users know what’s happening with you and they will be ready to help you out if you are in need. The better you explain the more they understand.(Umesh's post ends here.)
Even old websites used to give out simple and understandable messages before but they used to be very formal. Now the language has become more informal and more personal and it works. It helps to keep the situation light and in control. And it also shows how much you care for the users.
I think it all started with Gmail. A message which says “Hooray no spam here” was a big surprise for me at first. Even though I liked it, I used to wonder why they kept it like that. Then when I started seeing messages like “Grr something went wrong with the connection, try sending the mail again” I started feeling comfortable rather than getting irritated. I liked the way Gmail talked my language.
Cleartrip is one of my favorite sites and their message copy is outstandingly human. Once their site was not loading and I got this
And once my flight booking failed to go through
Oh this message from Squirl, once when i tried to upload an image actually made me laugh
But of course the weird ones just refuse to go away. I got this message when I tried to disconnect my internet connection.
I think it’s high time all of us understood the importance of good and more human copy writing in application development. It’s just a simple attitude change from our side which is needed to achieve a better user experience. Recently a developer friend of mine and I were browsing through Google reader and suddenly we saw the message “Grr something has gone wrong”. He saidHmm if I put Grr into my error message I will be told to take it out immediately saying its not good. But if google says the same, its great communication.
Talking human language in errors makes user's more comfortable with the app rather than just making them wonder if they screwed up with something :)In our quest for the killer feature, we sometimes underestimate the importance of tacit aspects of the product. In today's world where features can be copied everyday, things like comfort of use provide a source of competitive advantage. For example: Why do we choose one IM software over another (and add all our contacts to it, pushing our commitment deeper)? Just because we "like" it.
The undo problem is one key aspect I am hoping future web apps will support. I just deleted all my mails in my hotmail inbox and I need to ‘Undo’ but I can’t do it. If this was a desktop application I could have done this in a jiffy.
This is a huge problem in web apps, though they are not covered too much and not many people talk about them, as we are now pretty much used to this kind of behavior. Web apps work excellent, they store all our data, enable us to access them from anywhere and give us no worry about licenses etc.
But as we move towards looking at a cloud or what some people call as a ‘cloud OS’ it becomes increasingly important to have all the desktop paradigms on the web. This problem was probably not thought about by people because when the web started it was more a data storage medium where documents, files etc were stored and people would read from it, so probably there was never a need for offlines access or storing states. But as we move towards having a cloud OS, and making the web a operation system, it becomes very very important to look at such issues.
John Dowdell from macromedia has some interesting thoughts on storing states where he basically argues as to whether the Back button on the browser needs to smart to capture these changes and also talks about capturing states in web apps.
Having an undo functionality brings about a sense of simplicity in the user’s mind - “What the heck, I can always undo it” and hence brings more confidence. This will play a vital role as people from different age groups, degrees of tech saviness etc start using the web to perform very important and secure activities like paying bills, making purchases online etc.
So what's your solution to this problem ? Or is this a problem at all ?
Image courtesy : NewbieGamerBlog
Tafiti is a mashup that uses the resources of Windows Live Search driven by a Silverlight user interface. The result is a search engine with a totally new experience.
Tafiti (which is the Swahili word for "do research") uses a desktop metaphor to search across media types and even filter your data result set multiple times. So here’s my take on Tahiti.
The good
1. Provides a stack view of my search results – Ability to drag multiple search results on to the right pane and to label a stack of results.
2. You can email items of a stack to people, which is pretty useful.
3. Ability to blog about a stack you have created on your Live Space account.
4. Ability to pivot the search results by RSS feeds, books, news items, images. I found this to be very useful . It does not stop here, you can in fact view contextual information on a book. (This feature however doesn’t seem to be working currently)
5. Here is one cool feature, though it took me some time to figure out how to get to this – On your web search results, there is a tree icon and clicking on which provides a real tree view visualization of your search results. You can choose to view how many results you wish to see and hovering over a result provides a brief description of the same. Very cool, but doubt if people will find value.
The bad
1. A somewhat jerky experience throughout, not as smooth as WPF desktop applications.
2. There are some issues with resolution, does not run perfectly on lower resolutions.
3. No pagination for search results – there’s only a more link which is not great usability.
4. There’s a text box for filtering the search results – where you can actually type and I figured that it does a text comparison with the search results and pivots them. Not a common standard for filters - users might be expecting a drop down etc.
5. Try right clicking on the site and you will notice only one option called ‘Silverlight configuration’ clicking on which provides a note about silverlight. I am really hoping that this is customizable ?
6. It opens up all the search results in a new IE window, which is not great usability.
Overall, it’s worth a shot, though I am sure that Microsoft realizes that no one is going to use this as a search engine, it’s more of an effort to showcase the power of silverlight and maybe the future of rich internet applications.
Web 2.0 UIs look different. The way they behave is different. The user experience is different. Why is this? Is the average user of Web 2.0 different from Web 1.0?
The Pew Internet & American Life Project April 2006 Survey (which only includes those above 18) puts the average age of "Omnivores" (8% of American adult population) as 28. Excerpt below:
"They are highly engaged with video online and digital content. When the next popular user-generated fashion comes along, Omnivores are likely to testdrive it. One might even invent it."
But are Web 2.0 sites designed for omnivores? The next set of users, the "Connectors" (7% here) seems more like the group they are trying to attract. Definition below:
"The Connectors’ collection of information technology is used for a mix of one-to-one and one-to-many communication. They very much like how ICTs keep them in touch with family and friends, but they are also twice as likely as the average to blog or have a Web page. They like how ICTs let them work in community groups to which they belong, and overall they find their information gadgets a boon to personal productivity."
The study challenges some widely held beliefs of Web 2.0, that of the long tail. The belief that Web 2.0 is used equally by all, but some more than others is a myth. Web 2.0 users are a demographic.
That said, why is the UX different?
I think there are some basic reasons, beyond the target users:
Simplicity - Web 2.0 applications usually have simple features with large scale/complex aggregation. The user does not see the aggregation, but the results, which are again presented simplified.
User Participation - engaging the user and making them contribute is tricky. Too many steps and complicated structures when submitting information will easily take the user away. The ease of contribution is the primary attraction for user participation.
Continuous Improvement - the concept of the perpetual beta means there are constant addition of functionality. A complex UX would mean longer release cycles.
