I’ve been told that this happens a lot. Yes, he probably should have checked whether there was a ring on her finger, but he made it clear that he was interested in her and single. Why wasn’t she upfront about her being unavailable? Words that come to mind: time-waster, tease etc.

Time is a valuable resource. No one likes a time-waster when engaged in goal-oriented activities like looking for female companionship or applying for insurance.

Applying for insurance (or other financial products) can be a complicated process as different factors affect eligibility and pricing. However, there are often automatic fails (e.g. less than 4 years of UK residency for loans/credit cards, less than 2 years No Claims Discount for car insurance), conditions that will always make the applicant ineligible for the product.

Users should be asked about conditions that could be automatic fails as soon as possible (e.g. the first step of an online application form), and once an automatic fail has been identified, they should be taken to an apology/kick-out page rather than being allowed to continue filling out the application.

This may sound like common sense, but I recently reviewed a car insurance provider website that did not follow this approach in their process flow:

• Even if a user indicates an automatic fail condition on the first page of the form, it is possible for the user to be asked to complete 7+ more pages (e.g. if they need to identify their car, have claims or convictions, or want to add another driver) before being told that they are not eligible.
• Users are not given the opportunity to identify some conditions that are automatic fails (e.g. not having a full UK license) until after they receive an initial quote. Therefore, it is possible for ineligible applicants to think they have a chance for quite a while, and even receive positive indicators like seeing a quote, before being rejected.

There are plenty of fish in the sea. If a user is not eligible for an insurance product, they should be told as soon as possible so they can move on and find someone else who will insure them. The rejection will be easier to take because they have not invested too much time in the process, and they will appreciate that the organisation respected their time. And who knows … in a couple years when their circumstances have changed, they may come back to try their luck again.

According to Caroline Jarrett in her (very user-friendly) book Forms That Work, ‘Slot-in answers such as name, address, and date of birth are so well known to us that it is much easier and more natural to type them in directly rather than selecting from the list.’  For instance, she notes that it is difficult to scan options in a ‘Year’ dropdown because they look very similar.

I always find date of birth dropdowns annoying and would be able to type in my date of birth much more quickly, so I completely agreed with Jarrett. Therefore, I made the date of birth fields text fields in the first iteration of the prototype (desktop version), expecting that this would make it easier for participants to provide their date of birth. (Note: I know dropdowns prevent Americans from getting confused with the UK date format, but this form would only be used by UK residents.)

Well, half of the participants agreed with me. However, the other half made formatting errors during the testing session (e.g. D instead of DD). What I, a touch typist, had forgotten was that many people must look down at the keyboard to type and therefore may misinterpret or forget the field labels (YY instead of YYYY) or not notice that they have accidentally tabbed to the next field. These participants, who were less proficient at typing, welcomed dropdowns because they reduced the amount of typing they had to do.

I replaced the text fields with conventional date of birth dropdowns in the second iteration of the prototype (see below) and, surprise surprise, participants didn’t make any errors.

Despite this, for the mobile version of the prototype I had participants try entering date of birth using both text fields and dropdowns because I thought dropdowns might be more fiddly on a mobile device.

I got the same result: all participants preferred using date of birth dropdowns on their devices (smartphones with either touchscreen or QWERTY keypads) because it was much quicker and more accurate for them to select dropdown options than numbers (especially on QWERTY keypads).

So, reading books (and getting a UX person to create the prototype) is no substitute for user testing. And sometimes conventions are there for a reason. Even if they are annoying.

The interface was similar to a Flash website with animated navigation. Each of us had a circular ‘trackpad’ area at our right (catering to the right-handed majority) which we used to control a red cursor to browse and order menu items, change the background colour or pattern of the whole table (so people sharing a table could impose their choices on each other) and play games like Solitaire (although we could not play games against each other, which would have been awesome).

Unfortunately for us, the customer experience did not live up to the hype, which is a shame because the concept is fun, innovative and customer-centric. The food was delicious (if slightly overpriced). However, the problem arose with service: while drinks, starters and main courses appeared within 10 minutes of ordering (each of us ordered dishes as we wanted them, and they arrived at our table separately), we waited 20 minutes for dessert before becoming impatient and worried. Without confirmation from a real person, we were unsure whether our electronic orders had disappeared into the ether or if the kitchen was just busy. It took us a while to flag down one of the few waiters, and dessert finally arrived another 10 minutes later.

Given the peak-end rule, it’s not surprising that problems at the end of the meal influenced our perceived customer experience much more than our delight at the beginning of the meal, highlighting the importance of the last interaction between companies and customers. A good concept needs to offer a consistent experience. Regardless of what channel the interaction is in, it must end as positively as it begins for it to be one that you wish to repeat, or better still, recommend to your friends.

Privacy issues aside, some wonder whether Street View has any purpose, while others fear that it will increase antisocial behaviours like crime (by making it easier to plan entry and escape routes), spying and stalking.

Well you ‘can’ use Street View for good. Finding a place to live in London is usually a real pain, but I found Street View invaluable last night as I was sifting through dozens of potential flats online.

It is important for me to feel safe in an area when I’m walking alone, so I used Street View to see what it would be like to walk from potential flats to the nearest public transport. It was user friendly and helped me decide which flats I was interested in viewing, especially when the online advert did not provide many images of the flat itself.

Surprisingly, there were quite a few streets that I couldn’t go down using Street View. I wouldn’t be surprised by this for a small city like Cambridge, but just outside of central London? This is undoubtedly due to Street View cars encountering a frustratingly one-way street and deciding to move on to the next one.

Despite my annoyance whenever the 22,369 miles of UK streets covered by the Street View cars ‘didn’t’ include the street that I wanted, I have to admit it’s reassuring that Google isn’t quite an all-seeing eye.

I actually tried one out for the first time last week while doing my Christmas shopping. It was an unexpected encounter. I have to admit that the Sony Reader was gorgeous and the E Ink technology was similar enough to printed text to convince me that I wouldn’t have to worry about eye strain. However, even if the industry solved problems like the limited supply of new eBooks (sometimes I just don’t want to read Jane Austen) and proprietary file formats, I would still hesitate to jump on the bandwagon because I like the tangible experience of interacting with real books, and most eBook readers are too expensive (£190 to £350) for me to buy one out of (geeky) curiosity.

At first when I read about the miBook, I was even more sceptical. Yes it was much less expensive, but it was so niche: it was designed not for reading traditional text-based eBooks on the go, but rather for following step-by-step instructional multimedia ‘books’ (specifically produced for the miBook on topics like cooking and DIY) in the home. For instance, if I selected one of the many recipes from its ‘Amazing Party Food’ cookbook, it would play video with audio instructions for each step and, importantly, would wait until I pushed a button to play the next step.

Would consumers really buy such a limited device from an unknown brand in an increasingly crowded market when they could buy the Sony Reader, Amazon Kindle, or iRex iLiad?

I think maybe they would. Although I originally discounted the miBook for being too niche, reviews have convinced me that my own bad experiences when attempting to follow new recipes, such as uninspiring text without visuals, losing my place in the recipe, precarious positioning of my laptop on the kitchen worktop, and my inability to cook as fast as a TV chef, were
1. not unique, and
2. could be dramatically improved by the miBook.

The makers of the miBook have identified an activity where there could be better user experience (books are not illustrative enough and videos require fiddly pausing and playing) and created a relatively inexpensive device that makes it simpler and more fun. The miBook’s LCD screen, although not good enough for reading eBooks, allows it to show colourful videos that provide more engaging cooking and DIY instructions. Its success will depend, among other things, on the quality and quantity of the content provided by miBook’s well-known media partners such as the Food Network. However, I think the miBook is off to a good start with its user-centred concept.