User Experience

The buzz around Pinterest has been around for a while now but what are the attraction and the purpose of the new social network?

Mashable’s beginner’s guide is a good place to start for an overview; however with most things the best way is to just to try it out. I’ve been a member for less than a week and have played around and wondered about what to add? Suddenly, an hour had past and my ‘boards’ began to fill up; but how and why?

The first emotional hook is the intrigue in applying for an invitation to the ’exclusive’ group; a little buzz being accepted and then the realisation that you have an empty profile -plus a potential audience of over 11 million (The Realtime Report)

Secondly, Pinterest helps by suggesting titles for your boards. I like to call them “mood boards”. It’s nice to have a starting point. Pinterest will even sign you up automatically to ‘follow’ people; a manageable number that you can check out an ‘unfollow’ if they don’t suit you. So, what will your boards be filled with?

Personally, I think about what interests me as time is short and I have so much to ‘pin’. Over time it will develop and grow, so why am I bothering? It’s like a record of my life in a non threatening way. I have confidence in my interests, there’s nothing to hide, and it’s enjoyable to share and see what others are interested in – all in pictures!

A recent gripe is that a number of websites I’ve wanted to pin either don’t have large enough images to show or any images to show at all, which is a shame. It makes the search to pin an interest take much longer. Interestingly, ecommerce sites have seen a huge increase in their revenue. It’s a genius way of promoting products by using the most reliable source – word of mouth!

The user experience of Pinterest is excellent. The ease of use and the fact that it’s hugely engaging makes it something that we will be using more and more in the future. -Organaising events,-sharing interesting landmarks,-various collections and even videos; Pinterests’ options are endless and exciting.

There’s so much more to say, but really interested in your views. Please comment below.

I’ve been thinking about this for a little while and it seems to me that, love it or hate it, Apple and more specifically the iPhone has fundamentally changed the user experience (UX) industry. In this case I’m not talking about the shift to a more mobile device way of thinking, but more to the shift in perception it caused towards the user experience of products. As an industry we’ve never looked back.

Late 2006…

Before the iPhone, the smartphone was a very capable device in terms of functionality, yet the user experience of interacting with these phones was often somewhat poor. Considering that phones like the Nokia N95 or the Blackberry Pearl were thought to be the pinnacle of mobile devices. Perfectly functional phones, but try using one today after using a modern touchscreen.

At the same time, the web user experience was advancing, but it was always a hard battle for the benefits of UX to be acknowledged. We spent so much time justifying why UX was important and when allowed to help were often limited in what we could alter.

To us as practitioners, the benefits of UX are obvious, but the problem is when talking to engineers or decision makers the benefits are distant and abstract. If the solution you have works, why spend the time to make it vastly better?

I now have an iPhone in my hand

However, if you’ve experienced a great user experience, you start to see why it’s so important. The exclusivity of the iPhone to one network operator and the reluctance of corporate IT to let it be used in enterprise slowed its penetration into business, but once decision makers had experienced a well thought through and seamless user experience (iTunes aside), the case for UX became so much easier to make.

First the iPhone, then Android, which sought to reflect what made the iPhone so successful. Android then put an average to good user experience (version and handset manufacturer dependent) into the mass market, raising the bar for interaction expectation. Today, terms like user experience and usability are common in product reviews. The tech press has got the message and even some of the mainstream press. Now that we’re surrounded by better user experiences, people won’t settle for good enough and businesses cannot rest on their laurels.

But what if there hadn’t been an iPhone?

The big question is, would someone else have created something as good? Let’s take a look:

The then market leader Nokia had never managed to master the end to end experience (Ovi desktop applications were painful to use and not in any way integrated). They were also in thrall to the carriers who imposed their own, sub-par, handset customisations in the hope of creating/enforcing customer loyalty. Generally this tended to undo any of Nokia’s good work in creating a clean and usable UI. Nokia’s touchscreen attempts were average, but perhaps when capacitive touch came along they may have created something as smooth as an iPhone or top end Android phone (in reality it took them 3 years to even come close). Of everyone at the time, they had the vision and the research and development capacity to make it happen. I really hope things pick up for them.

If not Nokia, then perhaps a major internet leader might have stepped in. So, without the iPhone would Google have created Android? Probably. Supposedly Android was already in development when the iPhone came out. How much its eventual form owes to the iPhone is a great question (although it is interesting to see Apple borrowing Android style notifications, it’s not all one way traffic). Based on Google’s track record it wouldn’t have been a slick and painless experience though. Mass market is what we’d be aiming for, to get a great user experience in everybody’s hand. The trouble is, Google designs for techies, not consumers. The current version of Android is pretty good, but earlier versions were not so solid. The reason it sells well is because it’s good enough and it’s not as expensive as an Apple product. As an aside, it’s interesting to see how we think so much less about technical specifications of handsets and more about the software they run and the experience they provide. We’re not free of jargon by a long way, but I’m gratified to see that we talk more now about capabilities than processors. Based on their adverts though, Google still hasn’t totally got this.

Then of course there is the other software behemoth, Microsoft. They had already produced their own mobile OS, which could be found on a number of different handset models (most successfully HTCs). However, Windows Mobile was stylus dependent, somewhat slow and had an extremely painful web browsing experience. Everything I’ve read about Microsoft suggests that they would have happily continued down the stylus route, unless provided with a good reason to change.

If we couldn’t count on the software makers, would any of the hardware manufacturers have created anything compelling? Samsung and HTC are the obvious candidates here. HTC has been very good at customising others’ operating systems and Samsung have been pressing ahead with their Bada platform. It’s possible, but looking at their handsets pre-iPhone, they weren’t heading in that direction all that quickly.

Finally, we shouldn’t forget the network operators, who have so much power when it comes to actually getting products into consumers’ hands. Critically Apple wrested control of the experience from them. This was a pivotal moment, as traditionally the carriers have been somewhat lacking when it comes to developing software and UIs. I can’t be certain, but I suspect that without this, we would not have seen a great mobile phone experience, as it would always have been disjointed. Vodafone was probably the most progressive in this regard, but could never totally nail it.

So where would we have been?

Without a great user experience in most people’s hands, expectations would be lower for both consumers and businesses (I know mine were), the case for change would be that much harder to make and we would be putting together slideshows about the ROI of Usability. We’d still have been there, we’d still have been making things better, but let’s face it, it’s much easier when you don’t have to push on the door, but are instead welcomed in.

Thank you Apple. You aren’t right all the time, but looking back, it’s clear just how much of a game changer the iPhone was.

We have a very exciting visitor in our office: Mike Dewar, a data-scientist who consults with URL-shortening service Bitly. The company provides a service many people use routinely to share content, especially on Twitter where the 140-character limit makes it essential to shorten links as much as possible.

Mike holds a PhD in Systems engineering and has also completed post-doctoral work in various places using a wide range of data analysis methods – time-series, computer-based video analysis and other complex mathematical modelling – to study neural changes in fruit flies or how T-cells’ response to an antigen expresses itself genetically over time. He is now going to apply similar methods to the analysis of online behaviour – the links people click on.

In fact Mike is particularly interested in predictive analysis  (which link a user will click on next) and characterising human behaviour against that of robots. It turns out that before you analyse all the clicks on bit.ly URLs to make sense out of them, you need to be sure they were “genuine interest” clicks. It could after all have been some random bot scraping around, or a specific attempt at boosting clicks for affiliate purposes. There are in fact companies whose mission it is to sort out this human vs robot issue – pay per click is big business after all, and no one wants to pay for clicks made by code.

What I find interesting, though, is that Bitly’s service allows the company to collect a wealth of information on the content being shared across the web, and therefore gathers great insights from the social web: millions of people use the service to shorten links they share on Twitter for instance. The company has a team of computer scientists engaged in quasi-academic mathematical research to create models of user behaviour that predict what they will be interested in and therefore what they are likely to click on. This could be used for example to help users discover new content by making more intelligent suggestions. The end result would be an enhanced user experience when consuming content online. There is also, of course, an underlying commercial logic: predictive analytics wizardry is being used by online businesses to better target different segments of users, to try and optimise response rates on email campaigns, among other things. This is one of the many areas Foviance’s analytics team combines its expertise with that of our user experience team to bring added value to our clients.

Serendipity was clearly at work: what started as a quick informal chat turned into an hour long conversation during which I learnt that fruit flies carry out a sophisticated courtship song and dance (who knew?) and we discussed the challenges of data visualisation, a topic I am particularly interested in.

Mike – thanks for the chat!

Recent talk in the blogsphere suggests that the debate about user experience (UX) and creativity rumbles on. As a UX Researcher who believes strongly in good design, I thought I’d pitch in with my thoughts.

What I want to establish is that UX is not a hindrance to innovation or creativity, but something that should complement these pursuits. The problem seems to be that there is extreme polarisation in some quarters regarding a user centric approach. Some believe it to be the solution to everything, in effect giving the user the pen and asking them to draw the solution. Others believe it to be the antithesis of everything design and a complete block to creativity. In reality it should be neither, the key is to choose the right research for the right situation.

When working to enhance an existing concept or creating the next version of a product or service, traditional user centred design (UCD) works superbly. It’s what it’s designed for after all. Understand the current marketplace, understand business needs, understand user needs, create, evaluate, refine, repeat, launch and continually evolve. This is the bulk of what most organisations need from their UX engagements. It is of course a little more complex than this is practice as we must consider all channels a customer might engage with and ensure the best possible end to end experience, which inevitably involves some level of organisational change as well. However, the UCD method holds true throughout this.

Where things are a little more challenging is when UX meets innovation. Great innovators, like Steve Jobs or James Dyson, would contend that research with users does not lead to innovation. There is some truth to this; a focus group would have been unlikely to have designed an iPad or Dyson AirBlade. A survey wouldn’t have identified the need for Facebook. What you see with each of these products is where someone with uncanny insight addresses a latent need. Be it the ability to surf the web in an eminently immersive and pleasurable fashion, the ability to pursue a greater level of social connectedness or even the ability to experience dry hands after using a public toilet.

The trouble is that even for great innovators, these moments of great insight are rare. Mark Zuckerberg has arguably only had the one good idea, but executed and evolved it extremely well. James Dyson has created two or three revolutionary products. Steve Jobs’ genius was to take existing ideas and through an exemplary focus on the end to end user experience turn them into something so much better. What you’ll notice is that all of these extremely successful innovators relied upon insight, their own insight and their own empathy for users of their products. I salute their success, they’ve changed the way we experience the world, which is quite amazing.

However, for every other organisation this approach does rather rely on being fortunate enough to employ an amazing designer who completely understands their audience, has correctly guessed what they want and is prepared to tailor his creativity to suit their needs. This is where UX Research comes in. Contextual research methods such as ethnography or well facilitated creative workshops can lend great insight into users’ needs and provide designers with the information they need to create innovative products and services. And once they’ve created these products, we’ll be there to help them evolve and refine them. We’ll even help them to determine the emotional impact their products have.

We’re in this together. UX professionals are here to empower creative people and user focused organisations to deliver excellent experiences that delight their customers.

As a regular commuter, I’ve started to notice a few QR codes appearing on adverts inside the tube carriages and even on a poster in a tube corridor. The other day, I spied a large half-page M&S advert in the Metro that sported a conspicuous QR code. It was probably a special edition (13th October), since today’s paper did not contain anywhere near as many QR codes.

However, in this particular paper, inside the first page was a “Metro on the move in four easy steps” box with a QR code and a very brief explanation of what they are and how to use them. Within the paper I counted no less than 11 adverts with QR codes.

I decided to carry out a brief review of the QR codes using an iPhone 4 on a 3G connection in the same location within the hour. The results of my findings are below:

Non- mobile friendly web pages:

• Metro’s own QR code took a considerable amount of time to load because of the non-mobile friendly web pages.
• Wowcher advert on saving on paintballing: It was slow to load to the relevant voucher and went straight to the main non-mobile friendly website.
• Simplify digital advert on price comparisons was slow to load and after a lengthy amount of time passes, I’m still waiting.
• Lloyds Pharmacy advert on men’s “problems” (let’s leave it at that): Leads to a non-mobile friendly website. Although a funny advert with three naked men pictured holding hats in front of them.
• Flu Camp advert to recruit people for clinical trials: Another non-mobile friendly web, a pity as the actual advert and code were very creative.

QR codes leading to different advertised pages:

• M&S Dine in offers in store (dinner for 2, £10); although the advert stated the offer ran to the 18th of October the code simply led to a web page to sign up for text alerts
• M&S Women’s full page coat advert: M&S lead users to the site’s women homepage, although mobile enabled, it would be much easier if the QR code diverted users directly to the coat.
• AirFrance (general advert): Again, goes straight to their mobile home page, I would have benefited more if it had linked straight to the advert on display.
• Motors.co.uk advert about researching second hand cars: Lands straight to the iTunes download page. (Except the title of the scanned code is not relevant – it is simply the iTunes url)

QR codes working well:

John Lewis/Sony Bravia TV: A QR code that takes you straight to the mobile enabled buy now page. In my basket with a click!

Heathrow general advert/download free app: It goes to a video page (showcasing the advert) but you can skip it to get the app download page. This takes you straight to the iTunes download page.

The final verdict is, if advertisers expect to go mainstream with QR codes, they really need to improve the experience for users.

EGR Live for the eGaming industry offers:

• Updates and insights into the industry’s emerging trends including ways to make them work for your business
• Practical advice on need to know topics including licensing, regulation and fraud
• New opportunities in emerging markets and how to make the most of them
• Ways to enhance and grow your business by sourcing innovative and cost effective new solutions

Jamie Barnett, Head of Gaming at Foviance and Shilpi Dahele User Experience Gaming Consultant will be looking at how companies can develop a UX measurement programme to support a strategy of continuous improvement. Based upon best practice from other sectors and how some of the larger gaming companies, more dedicated to customer experience, are focusing their current UX strategy. They will also be providing a 20 point step by step guide to establishing an optimum user experience on mobile.

Wireframes are boring. I’ve seen many examples of sloppy, poorly presented, poorly rationalised wireframes (not in Foviance mind you) that it just begs the question: if we design user experiences for the platforms we’re working on, why don’t we make more use of this term called “design” and use it in the presentation of documents we produce?
Read more…

One of my single guy friends recounted the following story: he met a girl at a bar. She was attractive, fun and flirty. They talked for hours. When she was leaving, he asked for her number. She said, ‘I’m sorry, I’m married.’ He was, understandably, annoyed and frustrated.

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. Read more…