UXCentric™

We're in Hibernation! And Offering an Invitation!

2009-02-22T14:43:00.000-08:00

If you haven't noticed, UXCentric the Blog has been hibernating for a couple of years since I took a tasty gig at Yahoo! to resurrect a moribund site.

But if you're like me and obsessed with improving people's experiences on the Web, I'm delighted to offer you an alternative. I scour the Web daily for that are UXCentric--and save the best as PDFs for my own archives.

If you'd like to receive these daily, you are cordially invited to join UXCentric on Yahoo! Groups. Just follow the link click "Join This Group." Hope to see you there!

And if you have a tasty and challenging project that needs a passionate and skilled UXCentrist on the team, I'm always open to new opportunities. Just drop me an email using the link in the right rail of this page.

(DRM-free) Music to My Ears

2007-10-08T14:28:00.000-07:00

I'm happy to interrupt this hibernating blog to point you to one of the more important blog rants of the year, from Ian Rogers, VP of Product Development for Yahoo! Music. Aptly titled "Convenience Wins, Hubris Loses and Content vs. Context", this is a must-read for anyone frustrated with Big Music's stranglehold on digital music—and everyone passionate about user experience.

Save the Internet!

2007-02-26T13:30:00.000-08:00

Watch. Act. 'Nuff said.

This Just In...

2006-12-22T19:17:00.000-08:00

I'm certain I'm in the running for the "Don't do what I do, do as I say" blogging award in the "Practice What You Preach" category. Here I am, claiming to be "passionate about improving people's experience on the Web" while completely ignoring the people who read this blog.

Not to make any excuses (though I will), but I recently accepted a job offer that was simply too good to refuse. I'm now part of a talented and impassioned team that's reinventing a long-neglected site and determined to make it the best in its class while setting new standards for user experience. We're going to do it too—just you wait. Since we're still in beta, I'm going to keep the property under wraps for now. Suffice it to say that this is the project I've long awaited.

Meanwhile, a little shameless promotion...

First, I am delighted that Effective Prototyping for Software Makers (Morgan Kaufmann) has hit the bookshelves. I contributed the final chapter (a tutorial on digital prototyping with Adobe Acrobat) which I'm sure is motivation enough for you to buy the book (tongue firmly in cheek). All kidding aside, the book is a masterwork. Authors Jonathan Arnowitz, Michael Arent and Nevin Berger produced a book that is not only comprehensive but extremely practical. If you do any type of prototyping for software or Web, this book belongs on your shelf. You can learn more (and read sample chapters) at the Effective Prototyping Web site. Buy it now from Amazon!

And second, my latest column just went live at gotomedia's December gotoreport. Entitled "On Beyond Tinkertoy," I make the outlandish assertion that usability is the Tinkertoy of Web design and that it's time we grow up and move on to bigger and better things. You'll have to read the column to see what those are. And many thanks to Kelly Goto for giving me such a bully pulpit for my thoughts!

Taking a Breather

2006-10-20T17:49:00.000-07:00

So what ever happened to UXCentric the Blog? UXCentric, Inc., that's what! It has been a very busy year.

I just completed IA work for a redesign of a venerable site of several hundred pages. The timeline was aggressive, the need great, the hours long, the team and results outstanding. It's definitely a project for the "keeper" file.

It also meant a daily two-plus hour commute on a notorious LA freeway. Thanks to NPR, I'm fully informed on news of the world, but the drive severely cut into blogging time. I've got a couple of weeks off before a likely return to the next phase of the project, so I'll try to get some long-delayed posts online.

Meanwhile, I'm delighted to announce that I've contributed a chapter to the forthcoming Effective Prototyping for Software Makers (Morgan Kaufmann, due December 15) and that it's available for pre-order at Amazon. Primary authors Jonathan Arnowitz, Michael Arent and Nevin Berger have produced a definitive volume, one that Donald Norman calls "the essential guide to software prototyping." My chapter explains how to use Adobe Acrobat to quickly produce interactive low or high-fidelity prototypes.

UX Takes a Holiday

2006-07-26T10:41:00.000-07:00

That's the title of my latest column for the always-informative gotoreport at Kelly Goto's gotomedia. In it, you'll discover my pathetic habit of never turning off my UXCentricity, even during vacation. Please give it a read!

And don't miss the other excellent articles. Alissa Fleet describes how gotomedia used rapid cycles of usability testing and iterative design to boost the efficiency of Mexican-based AltiusPAR's hotel booking system and Leigh Duncan reviews airline ticket search aggregator Kayak.com.

The User Research Precipice

2006-07-21T12:41:00.000-07:00

Chris Fahey of Behavior is in the midst of an excellent series of posts at graphpaper.com exploring the nature of user research. A sampling from the first, where he explains that Behavior uses research to:

...try to know as much as possible about our clients, their customers, and their competitors, and we use this knowledge to inform our design process.

Many web designers and consultancies, however, feel it's not enough to use research to inform their design process. They go further: they try to make scientific user research the very foundation of their design process.

I use the word "try" because I suspect that the ideal of empirical, science-based user-centered design is something that we aspire to but never reach.

He goes on to say he suspects that "a lot of user research in this industry is a sham" that is sometimes seen as a way to avoid the true responsibility of "being expert designers who draw on deep experience and good instincts."

Them are fightin' words, but he's right. Valid, scientific research is costly, difficult and requires specialized skills and know-how that often make it prohibitive. Most importantly, no research results (no matter now scientific) can do the work of design.

I do a lot of user research and work very hard at it. At the same time, I take pains to ensure that my Clients understand its limitations—that we must take its results with at least several grains of salt. I probably go overboard, but I'd rather err on the side of caution.

For me, user research merely opens the door into the mind, hearts and experiences of end-users. It's then my responsibility to mull it all over, look at it from various angles, question it and ultimately add my experience, training and careful inferences. That's what makes UXCentrists so valuable.

My first Client taught me this nearly 20 years ago. When she offered what seemed a very high hourly rate for an easy project, I protested. "You don't understand, Dave," she replied. "We're not paying you for what you do; we're paying you for what you know."

If you need to rely on supposedly "scientific" user research for your design decisions, you're not yet a UXCentrist.

A Call to Arms?

2006-07-13T19:09:00.000-07:00

Wow! It has been a busy couple of months. Heck, it has been a very busy year! Sorry for my silence here.

One of the themes in my thinking lately is that we UXCentrics are poised for a quantum leap in how we do what we do. No, that's not accurate. Actually, it's more like we're poised at the edge of a precipice with feathers waxed to our waving arms trying to fly—when what we need is a state-of-the-art hang glider or even a fighter jet. The growth of Web audiences and technologies is so vast that it's outstripping our toolboxes.

In one of my columns at gotomedia's gotoreport, I wrote this in response to all of the Web 2.0 buzz:

We have to break new ground.Surveys, usability tests, personas, card sorting exercises—they retain their value. But Web 2.0 calls us to reach deeper into the minds and hearts of our users. We're going to need new tools, novel methods and fresh perspectives. I know one thing: Brain science will become immensely important to user advocates.

Today, Todd Wilkens of Adaptive Path lays out the challenge before us more eloquently than I:

Essentially, I am calling for an end to the decades-old framework that HCI, information architecture, and interaction design have been using for understanding users. That's right, I say take a hike, task analysis! Good bye, user goals! These concepts are insufficient for the new kinds of systems we are designing. People do not live their lives in terms of tasks and goals; most behavior is not task-oriented nor goal-driven. The drivers for action are often complex, subtle, and closely tied to culture, meaning, and context. But it's nearly impossible to talk about meaning in terms of tasks and goals.

I like task analyses and IxD and IA and figuring out user goals and ways to help them achieve them. They're valuable tools, but Todd is right: They are no longer enough and do not provide an adequate paradigm/worldview for what we need to do as UXCentrics.

While Todd's clarion call for change is well worth your time, he does not propose a new model. And that's OK. It's going to take the contributions of all of us to grow our discipline into the future.

Who Controls the Internet?

2006-04-27T18:41:00.000-07:00

While in the car, I caught today's edition of Fresh Air on NPR—a fascinating interview with Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu, authors of Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World.

If you've heard a bit about the legal issues faced by Google and Yahoo! outside of the U.S. (particularly in China) and wonder what they mean to the nature and future of the Web, this interview is a great way to learn more. Goldsmith and Wu have some surprising ideas and conclusions that (dare I say it?) suggest that a completely unregulated, freewheeling Internet isn't necessarily the cyber-utopia that we Web idealists rhapsodize. It's must-listening for UXCentrists!

Being a Smart (Healthcare) User

2006-04-21T16:13:00.000-07:00

With all the effort we UXCentrists put into our work, it's easy to forget that we are not completely responsible for the ultimate online and real world experiences of our end-users. After all, users are talented, intelligent, gifted people who can/should/must bear a goodly chunk of responsibility for how they experience our sites, services, stores and what-have-you.

I think that's especially true for healthcare—but its complexity, seriousness and expense all mitigate against informed user-patients. We still have a long way to go, but things are getting better.

For example, a couple of weeks ago while at Costco, I spotted YOU: The Smart Patient—An Insider's Handbook for Getting the Best Treatment. A little paperback, it's by the authors of the bestselling YOU: The Owner's Manual—An Insider's Guide to the Body that Will Make You Healthier and Younger. Other than a knack for long-winded titles, both share a somewhat irreverent approach and a very healthy dose of user friendliness.

Of the two, I found YOU: The Smart Patient by far the more valuable. With chapters on everything from choosing doctors and hospitals to dealing with prescriptions and health insurers, it's loaded with excellent guidance that shifts the balance of power more to the patient's side. Checklists tell you what to ask before you need to; references to online resources are plentiful—and there's a health journal form to get you organized.

It's a great example of how sharing a little insider information can significantly improve user experiences.

New at the gotoreport

2006-04-19T15:26:00.000-07:00

Just saw that my latest column for gotomedia's gotoreport is now online. This issue's theme is design ethnography—and having little experience with it, I muse instead about the challenge of avoiding possible distortion when observing and analyzing the behavior of end-users. Other articles include an interview with Microsoft ethnographer Tracey Lovejoy, a look at how the Converse site expresses its brand and how rapid ethnography and usability testing fit into the new world of mobile authoring. Check it out.

Are Payroll and a Great UX Mutually Exclusive?

2006-04-19T12:51:00.000-07:00

Nope—not if you're a user of PayCycle.

Let me explain. When I incorporated UXCentric, Inc. last year, it meant I'd become an employee again (albeit of my own company). And that meant payroll checks. I wrote hundreds of them back in my youthful retail days, so the idea itself wasn't intimidating. But I'd always had a corporate office that handled all of the payroll tax chores. I just wrote the checks (by hand) and they took care of the rest.

So I figured it was time to search for a payroll service. I asked my CPA for some recommendations and, of course, surfed the Web for ideas. I even filled out a form at BuyerZone.com to connect directly with several services. I got lots of e-mails in reply, but none of the services really caught my fancy. They were generally the same, offering the same services at the same prices. And all required me to jump through various hoops.

Then I stumbled across PayCycle through an offer in Microsoft Money. I was quicky intrigued when I saw that Paycycle had received the rare five points in a PC Magazine review. A little more exploration and I was a customer.

PayCycle is designed expressly for very small businesses—those with just a few employees. It begins with a friendly wizard that painlessly collects all of the data needed to set up payroll. It's not flashy—you could even call it stodgy—but it works. You can set up direct deposit, make electronic payments to federal and state (as applicable) agencies and even give employees access to online paystubs. Quick answers are usually just a click away—and for more extensive help, PayCycle's free tech support is superb. (They even called me back to be sure my minor issue had been resolved.) The service sends out routine reminders of key tasks (paydays, tax deposits, etc.) and integrates nicely with popular bookkeeping software. All for the same price as other, less-user-friendly traditional services.

Yep, this sounds like a paid endorsement, but I'm just a very satisfied customer. Even if you don't need a payroll service, check out PayCycle for an excellent example of making a monotonous task UXCentric.

And Now Returning After a Long Absence...

2006-04-18T12:38:00.000-07:00

I know, I know... What kind of a user-centered blog is this if it is never updated?

My sincere apologies. And my sincere excuses!

UXCentric, Inc. launched official operations on January 1, 2006—and was promptly inundated with projects. No complaints here, but things were so busy that even my "Dave's Research" mailing list (see the sidebar) fell to the wayside for the first time in five years.

The projects were great, the experiences many and I have plenty to share. So let's see if I can resume a more-or-less regular schedule of posting here in the coming weeks.

UX Defined

2006-01-11T18:39:00.000-08:00

Seen the definition of user experience over at the must-visit UXmatters site?

User experience (UX) encompasses all aspects of a digital product that users experience directly—and perceive, learn, and use—including its form, behavior, and content. Learnability, usability, usefulness, and aesthetic appeal are key factors in users' experience of a product. UX design takes a holistic, multidisciplinary approach to the design of user interfaces for digital products. It integrates interaction design,
industrial design, information architecture, visual user interface design, instructional design, and user-centered design, ensuring coherence and consistency across all of these design dimensions.

I think this is well put, and (as usual) have a couple of quibbles.

Although it's clear that the context of UXmatters (and UXCentric for that matter) is on the digital world, I'd rather not limit UX to the realm of 1s and 0s. That one word could be seen as shrinking the set of domains where we working in the digital world might look for wisdom, inspiration and guidance. I, for one, find that my best insights for digital UX usually come from the Real World. I'm sure that it's not the intention of UXmatters to narrow UX to the virtual realm alone—but the way we speak about our craft is important.

My second thought is related to the first. My favorite part of the definition is the latter half describing UX as multidisciplinary. That's what drew me to UX design in the first place and it's what gets my creative juices flowing each day. I realize that a concise definition can't include every possible influence on UX, but I miss references to filmmaking, set design, audio design and even theme park design. As UX expands beyond interactions on a distinct screen to perceived realities, we're going to have to add skills like these to our palettes.

But I'm nitpicking. UXmatters' definition is excellent and the discipline better because of it.

DIY UX

2005-12-21T17:43:00.000-08:00

Call me cheap, but I still rely on my old HP LaserJet IIIP printer, purchased in 1991. It's built like a tank, prints at a whopping (enhanced) 300 dpi and is so outdated that it isn't even pictured on HP's site.

In its first three years, it churned out more than 20,000 copies and needed service only once to replace worn parts in the paper path. With greatly reduced duty after that, it reliably printed until a few years ago when I had to lug it into the shop for repair.

I listed the problems and the technician added up the damage: About $150 to restore the printer to like-new status. At the time, new lasers with significantly better print quality were about $300. So I put the technician on the spot. "What do you think?" I asked. "Should I just buy a new one?"

He hedged, of course, reluctant to turn down work. "Well, that's up to you. But this one will last forever." He paused; an eyebrow raised. "Have you looked at the new ones?" His implication was clear: They don't make them like this any more.

I shelled out the $150, more out of nostalgia and loyalty than anything else—but I knew it would be the last time. And that IIIP purred happily along until last week when paper started jamming.

This time I was prepared. I pointed my browser to fixyourownprinter.com. In one click, I diagnosed the problem and in two ordered the part. It was shipped the same day. Following the color photo-illustrated instructions, I fixed the printer in ten minutes.

Cost: Twenty bucks. Bonus: A great user experience.

Announcing a Bouncing, Baby... Company!

2005-12-19T17:14:00.000-08:00

Yes, I have been away from UXCentric for a few weeks. A number of year-end projects have kept me hopping—and I have an exciting project of my own.

On November 22, UXCentric became more than a blog. Give a hearty welcome to UXCentric, Inc.! Business has been good and it was time to take advantage of the benefits offered by the corporate structure. And the change will spur me toward some exciting things in the future.

The process was remarkably user-friendly thanks to the always UXCentric assistance of Nolo, a leading provider of "do-it-yourself legal solutions for consumers and small businesses." I especially recommend Working for Yourself: Law & Taxes for Independent Contractors, Freelancers & Consultants. And How to Form Your Own California Corporation provided wonderful step-by-step guidance, checklists, forms and advice.

For the heavy lifting, I turned to my CPA and the services of BizFilings.com, a leading Web provider of incorporation services. The process was smooth as silk.

Now I'm surveying insurance and payroll providers, jumping through the usual federal and state hoops and beginning work on a new business and marketing plan. I love this stuff, so reminiscent of my long-ago retail management days.

So things may be lean here at UXCentric the Blog for a few more weeks. But I'll be back in 2006!

Virtual UX

2005-11-29T15:03:00.000-08:00

Trying to get a jump on the competition for the next couple of decades, I read Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, with an eye on the future of user experience design. Given his mind-bending projections, what might we UXCentrists be doing in the next ten, twenty and thirty years?

While the question is outside the lines of Singularity, Kurzweil gives a tantalizing clue:

"Virtual reality environment designer" will be a new job description and a new art form.

While Google didn't find any job listings for "virtual reality environment designer", both the University of Colorado at Denver and Eastern Oregon University already list it as a career choice. The less restrictive "virtual reality designer" yielded 412 hits on Google. If the future isn't yet now, it's not far away.

A little context will help clarify what Kurzweil might mean by "virtual reality environment designer." Computers at the beginning of the next decade will be truly ubiquitous, he says, woven, embedded and enmeshed in the physical environment around us. "These resources will provide high-resolution, full-immersion visual-auditory virtual reality at any time. We will also have augmented reality with displays overlaying the real world to provide real-time guidance and explanation"—including mapping, real-time translations and virtual assistants.

By 2030, "[n]anobot technology will provide fully-immersive, totally convincing virtual reality," Kurzweil continues. Nanobots positioned near "every interneuronal connection coming from our senses" will be able to intercept and replace signals from our actual senses and "replace them with those that would be appropriate for the virtual environment... Our brains will experience these signals as if they came from our physical bodies." He continues,

The Web will provide a panoply of virtual environments to explore. Some will be re-creations of real places; other will be fanciful environments that have no counterpart in the physical world... We will be able to visit these virtual places and have any kind of interaction with other real, as well as simulated, people (of course, ultimately there won't be a clear distinction between the two), ranging from business negotiations to sensual encounters.

Utlimately, says Kurzweil, "As we enter the 2030s there won't be clear distinctions between human and machines, between real and virtual reality, or between work and play."

One thing is certain: This spells the end for wireframes! Creating complete worlds will require new tools, new metaphors, new ways of thinking. I'll muse about these in upcoming posts.

Shameless Fraternal Promotion

2005-11-22T17:45:00.000-08:00

If you love jazz, poetry, fine art and/or great design, have I got a book for you. The fact that my brother, Paul Rogers, is the illustrator has little to do with this recommendation. (Uh-huh.)

A collaboration between Paul and jazz virtuoso Wynton Marsalis, Jazz ABZ : An A to Z Collection of Jazz Portraits is a unique alphabetical journey through jazz in pictures and poetry. Inspired by Paul's vivid images, Marsalis wrote poems in forms that expressed the character, music and rhythms of each jazz great. The combination of art and text is sparkling, made more lively by the book design of Paul's wife, Jill von Hartmann. And like DVD extras, the book includes capsule bios of each jazz maestro penned by jazz guru Phil Schaap, explanations of the poetic forms and even a recommended discography.

But don't leave it to this (biased) reviewer. Check these out:

A great NPR interview with Marsalis, including excerpts from the book. The page includes four poems, images and additional readings.

Steven Heller's review in the New York Times.

And a sneak peek at many of the images.

One more thing: Don't let the "children's book" categorization fool you. This is a book for all ages.

Book Review: The Singularity is Near

2005-11-08T17:05:00.000-08:00

I was fortunate enough to get an advance copy of Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near : When Humans Transcend Biologyawhile back and settled in for a good long read. And that's what it takes, as Kurzweil leads us through a thick wood where, if you don't pause for reflection, it's hard to see the forest for the trees. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

According to Kurzweil, we're approaching the time when nonbiological intelligence will emerge and advance so quickly that "unenhanced human intelligence" will be unable to keep up. This is the Singularity—a "profound and disruptive transformation in human capability"—and Kurzweil expects it by 2045. That's the premise for The Singularity is Near.

The first chapter—The Six Epochs—is a delightful summary of Kurzweil's thesis where he introduces us to the exponential evolution of technology (the bedrock for his later predictions). Indeed, he sees evolution itself as a "process of creating patterns of increasing order," and later suggests that the ultimate end of evolution is not biological or chemical, but intelligence. That he sees the sixth epoch as a time when the universe "wakes up" and is saturated with the intelligence "derived from its biological orgins in human brains and its technological origins in human ingenuity" is a clue that some metaphysical adventures lie ahead.

Great, stimulating reading thus far, but like all journeys that begin with enthusiasm and energy, challenges soon set in as Kurzweil fleshes out his theses with several detailed and heavily documented chapters. He examines technological evolution, the latest findings in brain research (hardware and software), the revolutions in genetics, nanotechnology and robotics. All are signs, he says, of our inexorable progress toward the Singularity. It's heavy going, even pedantic at times, but fascinating nonetheless.

It's when Kurzweil describes the likely impact on human bodies and culture that the questions begin to set in. Sure, it's wonderful to dream of a time when technology and intelligence have progressed so far that disease, world hunger and poverty are abolished. These are the visions of futurists of all eras. Yet the thought of nanobots replacing our blood, tinkering with our DNA to keep us disease, age and defect free while our slow electro-chemical brains are rewired by lightning-fast nanotechnological wonders gave me a mild case of the willies that grew as Kurzweil described moving ourselves into other "substrates"—not necessarily biological. To his credit, Kurzweil discusses the dangers inherent in such technology and addresses the major criticisms of his theories, but in the end I found something hollow in his depiction of the glories of the Singularity.

Kurzweil has been accused of being a reductionist and I find that critique at least in the ballpark. Despite the wonders of the human brain and intelligence that he vividly presents, Kurzweil skirts the issue of the nature of consciousness and spirit. I'm assuming he sees them merely as other manifestations of the incredible intricacy of our brains—but one reason I'm UXCentric is that I see humans as more than just an amalgam of biochemical reactions that produce intelligence. (In a future post, I'll examine what Kurzweil's vision might mean to user experience.)

Even so, I thoroughly enjoyed The Singularity is Near as a marvelous description of the latest research, a brain-and-spirit stretcher and a genuine discussion-starter with friends and colleagues.

Why I'm UXCentric

2005-11-01T10:44:00.000-08:00

Awhile back, as a contribution to a now-defunct book project, I wrote about how I had been captivated by user experience and how it had become the signature of my career. I stumbled across the essay today while looking for my "personal" definition of UX and thought I'd share it here. So why is UX so important?

To answer that, a little history. For most of the past two hundred years, scholars saw experience and emotion as dubious ways of understanding the world. That began to change in the second half of the 20th century, as people recognized that reason alone fails to address the existential questions of life. Neglected ways of "knowing" reemerged—myth, narrative, spirituality and, above all, personal experience.

This popular movement became so strong that experience invaded the marketplace. Joseph Pine and James Gilmore dubbed it "The Experience Economy," asserting in the Harvard Business Review that "leading edge companies—whether they sell to consumers or businesses—will find that the next competitive battleground lies in staging experiences." I'd go so far to say that experience will be the lingua franca of the 21st century.

That's why I'm so passionate about user experience.

A definition: User experience is the totality of an individual's interaction with and response to a business, product or service in any and every medium. It can be intensely sensual, like a stroll down Disneyland's Main Street U.S.A—an environment crafted to appeal to all five senses and evoke a particular response. It can be that tingle of cool when using your iPod. Or it can be a simple sense of satisfaction when making a purchase from an e-store. What does this tell us?

First, user experiences are intensely personal. Pine and Gilmore note that they exist "only in the mind of an individual who has been engaged on an emotional, physical, intellectual or even spiritual level."

Herein lies the challenge and the thrill of UXCentricity. User experience must begin and end from the perspective of the end-user. What are her needs? What does he want from our product, service or Web site? Is it enough to satisfy those needs or must we also meet intangible goals and aspirations?

One thing is certain: We can't answer these questions from the viewpoint of the executive suite. Experience design isn't another arrow in the marketing department's quiver. We have to get out of the corporate echo chamber! Techniques like contextual design, ethnographic research and focus groups help—but only when driven by a consuming absorption with our users.

User experience is greater than the sum of its parts. There are no heuristics for UX, no rules of thumb, bags of tricks or formulas for "Six Sure Ways to Guarantee a Great User Experience." It's not just a matter of assembling all the right elements in a certain way.

That's another reason I love UX: There are no answers. Sure, there are prerequisites (for example, your software had better work as expected), but there's an unexplainable mystery, an alchemy in a great UX. It emerges from an emulsion of user analysis, creativity, design skills, psychological insight and more—all doused with a big splash of humility. The fact that we don't have the answers is the answer. I love a good paradox.

A great user experience is captivating. The current UX buzzword is "engaging." That's too weak. A great UX does more than engage you. It captures, entraps, tempts and seduces. It grabs you by the lapels, sucks you in and won't let you go (not that you want to go). It raises your heart rate, deepens your respiration. It is everything you want it to be, does everything you want it to do—and a whole lot more. Remember your first time at Google?

User experience is everything you do. Say your company is redesigning its Web site. "I want a great user experience," says the CEO. So reinvent the company. Management firebrand Tom Peters calls this Re-Imagining—the willingness to reconsider common business wisdom and the courage to put into action whatever you discover.

UX will do this to you because it calls into question everything you do. It's not just your Web site. It's not just your retail stores. It's the way you answer the phone. It's the paper and ink of your business cards. It's the people you hire, the driving of your truckers, the working conditions of your overseas workers, your environmental practices.

If you're serious about providing outstanding user experiences—and today, that should be a given—fasten your seat belt. Few aspirations have more potential for turning the world upside-down. Imagine a UX-obsessed government. A retail giant fanatical about the life experience of its employees. An airline zealous about its passengers' flying experience. A Web site you look forward to visiting time and again. A call center that cheerfully solves your problems.

That's why I'm obsessed about user experience. And that's why I write UXCentric.

What I've Been Doing

2005-10-07T12:27:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I know. The pickings have been slim here at UXCentric. Mea culpa. I've been busy with the usual project stuff (including some stimulating user research for a corporate portal) and some extra-curricular activities.

For example, my latest column—One Size Fits None?—is now live at Kelly Goto's gotoreport. It's my rant about those hopelessly extravagant job descriptions for information architects—you know, the ones that require everything but the kitchen sink (although plumbing experience would also be welcomed). My point? I wonder if such job requirements (and our acquiescence to them) do a disservice both to our end-users and our young craft. Give it a read and I'd love your comments.

And while you're there, don't miss the other great articles in this edition of the gotoreport.

I also edited a new addition to gotomedia's site—a resource center listing the best books and Web sites on Web design. All modesty aside, I think this is an outstanding source of great information about our passion and discipline, culled from my six years of reading and scouring the Web.

Finally, I recently finished reading an advance copy of Ray Kurzweil's provocative and predictive The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. It's a truly fascinating look into Kurzweil's vision of the future, jam-packed with reports of astounding technical breakthroughs. I'll soon post a thorough review of the book as well as reflections on what Kurzweil's predictions may mean for user experience.

Comment Changes

2005-09-10T12:04:00.000-07:00

Comment spam has finally arrived at UXCentric. To spare us all a potential flood of links to porn and other questionable sites, you'll have to complete the usual "word verification" step to stymie automated commenting systems. Not very user-friendly, but preferable to garbage. Sorry for the inconvenience.

UX and Disaster Relief

2005-09-09T19:14:00.000-07:00

I live in Southern California. Seismologists tell us there's an 80-90% probability that a great quake of 7.0 magnitude or larger will strike the region before 2024—and "could cause the level of destruction and disruption seen...on the Gulf Coast."

I'm better prepared than most. Even so, after that quake I'm still going to need the vigorous and effective resources that only the federal government can provide. And given the appalling federal response to Katrina, I can only pray that our Big One is much delayed.

The tragic disaster of Katrina will be teaching hard lessons for years to come. I'm no expert on disaster relief, but I do know a bit about user experience—and given what I've seen in New Orleans, FEMA has a lot to learn about UXCentricity.

As I read and listen to the stories of survivors and evacuees, I note three common themes—themes that suggest ways to improve the human experience FEMA and other government agencies offer in times of disaster.

Speed. That thousands were left to fend for themselves for days in the wake of Katrina is one of America's most shameful moments. Over and over again, survivors (lacking food and water) repeated the number of days they had waited for assistance. And with each day, the cries grew more desperate. Why? Because people are reasonable. In the midst of disaster, they are more than aware of the tremendous challenges faced by relief agencies. They know it will take a couple of days to get things rolling. But when little is done for four, five or six days, anger is to be expected.

Here in SoCal, we've been told that we need to be prepared to care for ourselves for the first two or three days after a major quake. I imagine that New Orleanians had been told something similar. Yet they had to wait far longer. For the people massed at the Superdome and Convention Center, that's especially inexcusable. When people are facing the loss of everything they own—and the lives of those they love—a speedy initial response is as UXCentric as it gets.

Anticipation/preparedness. A characteristic of natural disasters is that they are unexpected. Yet in Tornado Alley, people expect tornadoes. In California, we expect earthquakes. In New Orleans, people expected a hurricane that could flood the city. It is unconscionable that Homeland Security apparently views the chance of a terrorist attack (of which the nation has suffered few) as more likely than natural disasters (which occur with regularity). To be caught so flatfooted on the hurricane-prone Gulf Coast despite long-range forecasts and last year's eerily prescient New Orleans FEMA drill is ridiculous. We're all told to be prepared; our government should be too.

I offer this suggestion—one that will also help speed initial responses: Station "rapid relief forces" in disaster-prone regions, ready to fly at a moment's notice. Stocked with MREs, water, medical and sanitary supplies, these could be staffed by trained National Guard or active-duty troops to provide vital necessities quickly until more substantial services could be established. Imagine the difference in New Orleans if two or three such forces had flown in to the Superdome on the day after Katrina.

Tell the truth. While FEMA seemed frozen in place, the mainstream media poured into New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. The world saw the tragedy first-hand—so when the federal spinmeisters tried to weave their spells, we saw the distortions. We cheered Mayor Nagin as he vented his anger on the air. We jeered George Bush's assertion that the government didn't expect the levees to fail. We applauded Kanye West for speaking his unscripted and understandable opinion. An Everyman (on our behalf) cursed at Dick Cheney's doublespeak.

People are reasonable. In a disaster, they know things don't run smoothly—and they may very well know more about the situation than those offering assistance. So tell them the truth, even when it's difficult. Don't make promises that can't be delivered. Don't evade the questions. If you don't know the answer, say so. Above all, don't bullshit.

Like all UXCentricity, it comes down to respect for the people who need and use your goods or services. A rapid response shows respect to those suffering, signaling the nation's concern regardless of class or color. Anticipating a disaster (even one that may not come for years) by maintaining readiness communicates the government's value of citizens. And telling the truth demonstrates a high regard for people—that they are reasonable even in dire times.

A little UXCentricity goes a long way. Here's hoping that FEMA includes it in its much-needed overhaul.

Where UX Really Matters

2005-08-16T10:34:00.000-07:00

Like most UXCentrists, I can get pretty passionate about our users' experiences. Do we help them achieve their goals? Do we treat them with respect rather than as visits, clicks and purchases? Do they enjoy their time with us? That I emphasize Web experiences here at UXCentric doesn't diminish my passion one bit.

Time for a reality check. There are many, many settings where user experience is far more important than that of a mere Web site. Health care, for example. This week, the New York Times (registration required) has donned the cap of UXCentricity with an outstanding series on the human experience of health care—and it's vital reading if you have any interest at all in UX.

The series begins with a vivid look at the sea of information that inundates today's patients. A sample:

Last summer, with the second joint of his left big toe painfully throbbing from gout, Carl Schneider, a law professor at the University of Michigan who had already consulted his internist and a rheumatologist, leaned wearily against a hospital wall as three other doctors argued over which regimen he should follow. One doctor handed him a 20-page Internet printout that cited gout treatment studies, none of them definitive.

"At 57, it's a little late to be starting medical school," Mr. Schneider remarked acidly. "But the burden still falls on me, having to pick among opinions."

In today's examination of the medical "user's" shift from person to patient, Dr. Drew Altman of the Kaiser Foundation speaks UXCentrese:

"The point is that when they talk about quality of health care, patients mean something entirely different than experts do. They're not talking about numbers or outcomes but about their own human experience, which is a combination of cost, paperwork and what I'll call the hassle factor, the impersonal nature of the care."

The truth is, the importance of UX on a Web site pales in comparison to the critical human need for the the utmost levels of care—body and soul—when we are seriously ill or injured. The Times' series gives us wonderful insights into what experiences people value most.

UPDATE: (August 20): Part 3: Sick, Scared and Waiting, Waiting, Waiting

UPDATE: (October 13) Parts 4 and 5: Alone in Illness, Seeking Steady Arm to Lean On. Part 5: Treated for Illness, Then Lost in a Labyrinth of Bills.

UPDATE: (October 30): Parts 6 and 7: When Health Insurance Is Not a Safeguard and Part 6: For a Retainer, Lavish Care by 'Boutique Doctors'.

UPDATE: (November 16): Part 8: Young, Assured and Playing Pharmacist to Friends and Finding Information Online From Peers and Professionals.

UPDATE: (November 30): Part 9: When the Doctor is In , But You Wish He Wasn't.

UPDATE (December 17): Part 10: When a Worker's Health Crisis Deteriorates Into a Job Crisis and Breaking the News to Your Boss.

UPDATE(December 23) Part 11: Doctor's Delicate Balance in Keeping Hope Live and sidebar, Getting Answers in the Right Dose.

UPDATE (February 3) Part 12: When Trust in Doctors Erodes, Other Treatments Fill the Gap.

UPDATE(March 3) Part 13: Recourse Grows Slim for Immigrants Who Fall Ill.

Whoa, Big Fella!

2005-07-28T13:46:00.000-07:00

There are few people in the design community more respected than Donald Norman, author of the classic The Design of Everyday Things and Emotional Design: Why We Love (Or Hate) Everyday Things. Norman has long been a source of wisdom, common sense and balance. When the man talks, we UXCentrists listen!

That's probably why his recent essay, Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful, is raising something of a ruckus. Here's the first paragraph:

Human-Centered Design has become such a dominant theme in design that it is now accepted by interface and application designers automatically, without thought, let alone criticism. That's a dangerous state when things are treated as accepted wisdom. The purpose of this essay is to provoke thought, discussion, and reconsideration of some of the fundamental principles of Human-Centered Design. These principles, I suggest, can be helpful, misleading, or wrong. At times, they might even be harmful. Activity-Centered Design is superior.

Like Norman, I get very nervous when I run across those who swear by one particular methodology or ideology over all others. We live in a delightfully complex world that routinely demonstrates the foolishness of such approaches. This is particularly true when designing user experiences, digital or otherwise. The vast territory that UX designers must address makes "I don't know" one of the wisest responses we can make! As I've written before, one of my favorite aspects about UX is that it requires a large dose of humility. The fact that we don't have the answers is often the answer!

In this essay, Norman makes some excellent points. He's absolutely right that we cannot and should not rely solely upon human-centered design methods. (That's why my model for information architecture/UX design includes a hearty serving of activity, task and process analysis.) He also does a fine job advocating for the inclusion of what he calls "activity-centered design." And, rabble-rouser that I am, I appreciate his intention of stirring up discussion.

However, Norman does not support his claim of superiority for activity-centered design with evidence beyond the anecdotal. Similarly, he fails to demonstrate that human-centered design itself can be misleading, wrong or harmful. Indeed, by the end of the essay, he seems to backpedal away from that assertion, peppering his sentences with mays, mights and maybes—and even proposing a marriage of sorts between HCD and ACD. In conclusion—despite his intentions—this makes Norman's essay seem more jeremiad than reasoned call for debate.

Update, July 30: Peter Merholz and Andrew Otwell weigh in on Norman's essay.

So What's the Big Deal?

2005-07-20T17:33:00.000-07:00

And why did I write so much about the role of story in the rise and decline of Baskin-Robbins 31 Ice Cream?

Two reasons.

First, it was a roundabout (OK, a very roundabout) way to review Seth Godin's outstanding new book, All Marketers Are Liars: The Power of Telling Authentic Stories in a Low-Trust World.

This is a book that belongs on every UXCentrist's bookshelf—not because we're liars, nor because we're professional marketers, but because UX at its core must include storytelling. (More about that in a moment.) By telling the story of Baskin-Robbins' story, I hoped to intrigue you with Godin's ideas and illustrate them in a way that would encourage you to read his book. If we UX-obsessed folks hope to change the world's experiences of the Web, we'd better grok everything we can about story.

Which leads to my second reason—to encourage us to start thinking about UX in new ways. In A Whole New Mind, Dan Pink quotes cognitive scientist Mark Turner:

Narrative imagining—story—is the fundamental instrument of thought. Rational capacities depend on it... Most of our experience, our knowledge, our thinking is organized as stories.

What's so amazing is not that we're just discovering this, but that we forgot it in the Information Age. Facts alone seemed sufficient. The myth of objectivity fooled us into thinking that we could apply a neutral science to human endeavors. We mistook knowledge for wisdom.

Here's what troubles me. So much of what we hear about UX today reflects that error. It's all about technique, about methods, about facts. We do usability studies. We apply UI patterns. We build taxonomies and thesauri. We do card sorts and anthropological observation of users in their native habitats. Do you see what's lurking behind this? We're taking what is innately human and mysterious—experience—and acting as if we can master it with principles and practices.

We can't. Those things are indeed invaluable and essential, but they only address a limited dimension of human experience. There's much more (like story) that we need to embrace as UX practictioners. And we'd better start doing it soon because the looming alternative is failure. As Pink reminds us, "minimizing the importance of story places you in professional and personal peril."

Baskin-Robbins was successful not because it applied "modern and scientific" mass marketing techniques, but because it offered a wholly human experience. It told an authentic story that people wanted to believe—and framed that story according to the prevailing worldview. More important, it told that story in everything it did from flavors to store designs to colors to training materials. It succeeded because its story and UX were as one. I think that's a great object lesson for UXCentricity.

The Day the Story Died

2005-07-15T11:20:00.000-07:00

Back in 1971, Don McLean sang of "The day the music died" in his monster hit, American Pie. Today, I'll talk about the death of a story.

By the time of its 31st birthday in 1976, Baskin-Robbins 31 Ice Cream was at the peak of its popularity. Finally a truly national brand, the company boasted more than 1500 stores from coast to coast with dozens added each year. Excepting a few small regional chains, Baskin-Robbins was America's hands-down favorite ice cream and the unquestioned leader of the market.

The engine of B-R's success was its innovative, high-quality product in an age of ice cream commoditization. But it was the stories the company told that fueled that engine—stories of flavors, stories of quality, but especially stories of fun.

The storytelling started at the top. "We don't sell ice cream; we sell fun!" said founder Irv Robbins. In 1972, marketing VP Bruce Enderwood recast it as "We make people happy."

Mr. Robbins and his immediate successors were the viral carriers, the "Typhoid Marys" of the brand story, and forged the company in that story's image. Working at Baskin-Robbins headquarters in their day (as I did) meant getting infected with an enthusiasm for quality, innovation and fun. And it filtered right down to the people scooping the ice cream in the stores.

As Seth Godin demonstrates, successful marketers tell stories that people want and choose to believe. The Baskin-Robbins story worked so well because it was true. People did have fun at Baskin-Robbins. Not only did they find terrific ice cream in unheard of flavors, but they also found "people of the story"—franchisees and employees who so believed the story themselves that they delivered the brand promise.

It's not quite that way today. While Baskin-Robbins typically leads the lists of favorite ice creams, it's not the marketing powerhouse it once was. It is perceived more as a commodity ice cream, the McDonalds of the industry. Its fabled innovation is sluggish. Competitors have wedged their way into the market, many of them using the same strategies that served Baskin-Robbins so well.

What happened? I think B-R's story died.

It was a slow decline, starting with the usual threat to a company founded by entrepreneurs: Mr. Robbins and his successors began to retire in the late 1970s. New faces filled their positions, qualified people to be sure, but people who hadn't caught the bug, who didn't live the story. We "oldtimers" (for that was what we had become, regardless of our ages) felt a sea change.

Meanwhile, developments elsewhere spelled rough seas ahead. Chief among them was a change in cultural worldview. During Baskin-Robbins' first three decades, consumers viewed ice cream as a wholesome treat. Yes, it was rich, creamy and caloric but was derived from dairy products and (consumed in relative moderation) was even seen as good for you. That view was turned on its head in the 80s as study after study revealed the dangers of a diet high in saturated fats. People began to worry about fatty foods—and ice cream was high on the list.

This shift in perspective profoundly threatened Baskin-Robbins. Godin explains that marketing stories are effective when they are appropriately framed in terms of consumers' worldviews. Suddenly, B-R's story of "ice cream fun" became suspect. It's hard to have fun and feel happy when you're worried about your arteries!

Into the gap charged a new challenger—frozen yogurt! With its long-held position in consumers' psyches as a "health food," yogurt (especially of the lowfat variety) came to be seen as a healthy alternative to ice cream. Soft-serve yogurt shops sprang up practically overnight—TCBY leading the way. Baskin-Robbins (historically an innovator) was caught flatfooted and responded with several so-so flavors of hard-serve frozen yogurt. The company's brand as a trailblazer took a hit as the yogurt competitors blossomed. The eventual addition of soft-serve yogurt in B-R stores came too little, too late.

Next—in an unexpected counter-reaction to fat fears—Häagen-Dazs (a venerable New York company with an ersatz Old World name) rode the crest of the 1980s' fascination with designer products. In a direct assault on Baskin-Robbins' story of quality, H-D boasted that its high-fat product was the "ultimate super-premium ice cream." Again, Baskin-Robbins was unprepared. The eventual release of its own copycat super-premium line did little to staunch the loss of its reputation for quality and innovation.

Meanwhile, Dove Chocolate opened up a third front by introducing its luxurious Dovebars. They ignited a new demand for opulent ice cream novelties—one Baskin-Robbins' hastily-released bars failed to satisfy.

Finally, insult was added to injury as upstart Ben & Jerry's flourished by adopting B-R's story of fun and wacky flavors as its own, coupling it with a worldview-congruent concern for social and environmental issues.

In the midst of this turmoil, Baskin-Robbins had paradoxically reached new heights in product quality. Its labs were the best in the world, staffed by outstanding technologists. Its plants were state of the art. The problem wasn't in B-R's abilities and resources; no, it was a matter of heart. The story of fun that had built the brand had been set aside (along with its classic 31 logo) as old-fashioned and unsophisticated. Baskin-Robbins had lost the fire in its belly that drove its passion for innovation.

In the mid-1990s, hope arose in Baskin-Robbins' International group where many of the company's oldtimers had fled. Under the inspired marketing direction of Neil McMillan and Maureen McConnell, B-R's brand story was resurrected and told to an attentive world. Fun was emphasized. Amazing new flavors introduced (many featuring exotic global ingredients). Baskin-Robbins re-established its credentials, this time as the world's Flavor Expert. The result? Declining sales reversed, resulting in a cumulative overseas growth of 55% over five years.

The story has life in it yet.

I won't claim that it was only the corporate neglect of Baskin-Robbins' ancestral story that caused its malaise of the last twenty years. Increased competition, a changing market, pressures from the parent company, human foibles and more all played a role. Yet I can't help but believe (and All Marketers Are Liars seems to confirm) that if the heritage of the brand—best expressed by its story—had been nurtured and celebrated by its new generations of leaders, Baskin-Robbins would have better weathered the storms.

What does the future hold for Baskin-Robbins? Things could be interesting. Pernod Ricard has purchased B-R's parent company, Allied Domecq.The buzz is that Pernod will divest itself of A-D's non-spirits brands, including Baskin-Robbins.

Next time: One last post on this subject, including why it's so important to UXCentricity.

Full disclosure: I worked for Baskin-Robbins corporate from 1973 through 1987—and as a consultant (mostly to the International marketing group) since then.

"We Make People Happy" Part 4

2005-07-09T16:54:00.000-07:00

Stories built Baskin-Robbins 31 Ice Cream. Stories of 31 Flavors in an age of commoditized supermarket brands. Stories that brought individual flavors to life, giving them personality and character. Stories of new flavors introduced each month that kept word-of-mouth buzzing. Stories told in the stores by amusing signs, free samples and (always) that array of 31 Flavors front and center.

In its first three decades, Baskin-Robbins constantly told stories. But there was one story that was the story.

"We don't sell ice cream," Irv Robbins once said. "We sell fun!"

He was wrong, of course. Baskin-Robbins did (and does) sell ice cream. The company produced it and sold it to franchisees who sold it to customers. Customers came to Baskin-Robbins stores to buy ice cream. That was the revenue stream, the way things worked. Everyone knew it, from Mr. Robbins to millions of customers.

But that's not what they believed.

Seth Godin says All Marketers Are Liars—and if we want to get technical, Mr. Robbins was lying too. But check Godin's money quote:

Marketers aren't liars. They are just storytellers. It's the consumers who are liars. As consumers, we lie to ourselves every day. We lie to ourselves about what we wear, where we live, how we vote and what we do at work. Successful marketers are just the providers of stories that consumers choose to believe.

The story Baskin-Robbins told for its first 30 or 40 years was that it sold fun—and people believed it because they wanted to believe it. Godin continues,

Stories let us lie to ourselves. And those lies satisfy our desires. It's the story, not the goods or the service you actually sell, that pleases the consumer.

People want to have fun and the Baskin-Robbins story told them they could have it under the sign of the Big 31.

And here's the Big Secret: The Baskin-Robbins story worked so well because it was true. People did have fun at Baskin-Robbins. Children—the world's biggest ice cream fans—enjoyed the desire, the discovery, the deliberation, the denouement provided by that first lick. Parents enjoyed their children's delight, the ease of service, the kid-friendly environment and a little treat for themselves. Adults enjoyed the novelty, the grown-up flavors and the feeling of being in-the-know. Seniors enjoyed echoes of days past, memories of soda fountains and personal service.

Godin notes that great stories are true—not necessarily because they're factual but because they are "consistent and authentic" and don't contradict themselves. Baskin-Robbins met the challenge.

One key reason was that in its early decades the organization was small enough that there could be just two degrees of separation between its founders and the workers on the dipping line. Mr. Baskin and Mr. Robbins personally transmitted their passion and obsession to each franchisee. (Indeed, the first franchise agreement required that the store be operated "in the same manner and on the same principles" as Mr. Robbins had.) In turn, storeowners passed them to their employees who delivered the promise day after day. Further, a flow of communications from headquarters kept franchisees and employees alike in the loop. Thus the brand story spread directly from the enthusiastic source to customers eager to believe it.

One more story for today. Perhaps the quintessential expression of the Baskin-Robbins story of fun emerged in the early 1970s during a cloudy transatlantic flight. Marketing VP Bruce Enderwood (a master marketer and enthusiastic storyteller) was musing over potential marketing strategies in his window seat when the plane broke through the clouds into a brilliant blue sky. Inspiration struck! Mr. Enderwood reached for an airsickness bag and wrote this rendition of the Baskin-Robbins story:

We make people happy.

After 25 years of meeting its promise, the company had earned the right to proclaim it.

Next time: The day the story died.

"We Make People Happy" Part 3

2005-07-05T13:08:00.000-07:00

We're in the midst of a case study or, more accurately, a case story—a tale of how incessant storytelling fueled the growth of Baskin-Robbins 31 Ice Cream in its first three decades. I think it nicely demonstrates Seth Godin's assertion that marketing is storytelling. I'll go further: Storytelling is an essential element in creating powerful user experiences.

Marketing-by-storytelling may not have been the first choice of young Irv Robbins and Burt Baskin. After all, when they approached the Carson Roberts agency in 1953, it was to purchase their first big ad campaign in the Los Angeles Times. But the agency took one look at the budget and one look at the 17 stores and knew there was a problem. Five hundred dollars wouldn't go far and, worse, the stores lacked a common identity, bearing either the Snowbird or Burton's monicker. So Carson Roberts proposed something altogether different—telling a story of 31 Flavors:

After investigating the market, we found that the one big point of difference between this manufacturer, this store and all competitors was the magic of the 31 different flavors... We felt that the "31" was a symbol we could 'hang our hats on' for all purposes. It tells our merchandising story. It is the one big obvious point of difference between us and our competitors. It is easily remembered.

From there, they created a dramatic symbol—the Big 31 surrounded by cherry and chocolate polka dots—and insisted that everything from cartons to delivery trucks tell "the '31' story."

If we want to get all MBA about it, Baskin-Robbins' marketing message was really "quality and innovation in an age of ice cream commoditization." Quality was a direct assault on the young company's chief competitors (grocery stores) and their cheaply-made generic ice creams. Innovation challenged the extremely limited flavor selection of the time.

But that's not very compelling, is it? So how did Baskin-Robbins tell its stories in the 50s, 60s and early 70s?

Above all, it was the tale of the 31 Flavors, one for each day of the month. The number appeared everywhere—on containers, uniforms, wall hangings, ads, clocks, puppets, beach balls and (most prominently) blazing outside every store.
With that one symbol, Baskin-Robbins signaled liberation from the "Man in the Gray Flannel Suit" constraints of the 50s and appealed to the universal desire for the new. In the 50s and 60s, no one offered more than a handful of ice cream flavors while Baskin-Robbins offered 31! It was uniquely new, different and adventurous. And by adding new flavors each month, Baskin-Robbins kept its story fresh, relevant and attention-getting, because (as Seth Godin notes) "people only notice stuff that's new and different."

Besides the "big" story of the 31, Baskin-Robbins told the stories of individual flavors. It seemed that every flavor had some kind of story. From Jamoca^® (made from a custom blend of freshly-brewed coffee) to Oregon Blackberry (made only from select berries from the slopes of Mt. Hood), every flavor was assigned a "quick sentence" that scoopers could share with customers. Dedicated signs (dubbed "hot signs" for their fluorescent hues) told the stories in quirky cartoons. And the stories grew mythic as time passed:

Burt Baskin once met a man who told him, "Whoever thinks of all these flavors must be plumb nuts!" "Congratulations," said Mr. Baskin. "You just invented a new flavor: Plum Nuts."

At the height of Beatlemania just before the Fab Four's first U.S. tour, a reporter from The Washington Post called Irv Robbins and asked what new flavor would honor the Beatles. The truth was Baskin-Robbins had not invented a Beatles flavor. Caught unprepared, Mr. Robbins gulped and blurted, "Uh, Beatle Nut, of course." It was created, manufactured and delivered in just five days.

Following a trip to New Orleans, Irv and Irma Robbins were enjoying some souvenir pralines at home when the Flavor Muse struck. They rushed to the kitchen, mixed the pralines with vanilla ice cream and a caramel ribbon—and Pralines 'n Cream was born. It was such a hit that stores all over the country ran out. Advice columnist Dear Abby pleaded in print for its return. Headquarters received petitions with hundreds of signatures. And in Santa Barbara, students picketed local stores until Baskin-Robbins delivered a special production run of the flavor.

Then there was the Flavor of the Month story. By introducing new flavors each month (and while rotating favorites in and out of the stores), Baskin-Robbins went beyond "just" 31, offering a different 31, a different set of stories each month. This soon took on a life of its own with flavors inspired by pop culture, exotic locales, historic events, and television shows. By retelling it each month with a new twist, the strategy kept the 31 story from becoming mundane.

Even the stores told the story. The brand motif (the 31 and polka dots) were prominently displayed outside. Flavor signs hung in every window. Inside, gleaming freezers put the flavors front and center. The largest sign in the store was a pegboard listing every available flavor. Small "flavor lists" served as menus, telling the story of the Flavor of the Month and promoting the next month's selection. As a bonus, the stores were customer-friendly, providing a suitable and easy-to-clean environment for families loaded with little Boomer children.

Perhaps most important, the Baskin-Robbins story was an easy story to tell. It was brief, it was fun, it was easily shared by children and adults.

The result? In 20 years, the 17 stores in Los Angeles blossomed to more than 1500 nationwide without traditional mass-market advertising.

Next time: The secret behind the story.

"We Make People Happy" Part 2

2005-06-30T15:46:00.000-07:00

For those too young to remember, Baskin-Robbins 31 Ice Cream was once the unchallenged leader of its industry. With its superb quality and ability to create nationwide buzz with wacky and imaginative flavors, B-R ruled the roost.

And it was mostly due to stories.

Yes, creativity, a great product and relevant stores were part of the mix, but for its first 40 years, Baskin-Robbins flourished on its stories.

Looking back, that's very clear. When I began there in the 1970s, the company was steeped in its own mythology—and I mean that in the most Joseph Campbell-ian sense. B-R's origins are straight out of "The Hero's Journey:" Two young guys, far from home, their lives interrupted by World War II, start ice cream businesses in exotic Southern California. Despite the competitive challenges of commoditization via mass production and supermarket distribution, the pair beats the odds and, in so doing, transforms the ice cream industry.

Yet there's more than mere corporate mythology. It's personal. Founder Irv Robbins (who in 1945 opened his first "Snowbird" store in Glendale, California) is himself a storyteller par excellence. In working with Mr. Robbins before his retirement, I found that not only does he have a lot of stories to tell, he delights in telling them. And I suspect it was that way from the beginning. When I got the chance to see his personal scrapbook from the early years, I found a compelling tale in words, photos and original packaging. Even his first advertising materials contained stories.

Thus storytelling was at the heart of Baskin-Robbins from its beginning. That was a good thing, for it began during the golden age of television when, says Seth Godin, "to grow your company, all you had to do was create a commercial that generate demand—and then make something to sell." Baskin-Robbins had something wonderful to sell, but they didn't have the money to pay for mass-market advertising.

Enter the story. In its landmark 1953 proposal that would turn Baskin-Robbins into a household name, the fledgling Carson Roberts agency said this:

We felt that the "31" was a symbol we could 'hang our hats on' for all purposes. It tells our merchandising story... Everything gets into the act: from the car which delivers, to the bar across which the consumer buys...we keep selling the "31" story."

Mr. Baskin and Mr. Robbins took the advice—and saw sales nearly triple in just five years. The infusion of story into all B-R did is evident in its first employee handbook, dated 1958. Some excerpts:

This is a story dedicated to all member of the Baskin-Robbins family.

Here for the first time between two covers is the story of your company.

It's a story of dedication to quality...a story written by many men and women.

The next chapters will be written by you.

Here is the interesting step-by-step story of how Baskin-Robbins ice cream is processed.

Because the small company couldn't afford mass advertising, it was forced to rely on the most powerful marketing force of all. Storytelling became a foundation of the corporate culture and would propel Baskin-Robbins to stardom. We'll see how in the next installment.

"We Make People Happy" Part 1

2005-06-29T18:32:00.000-07:00

I'm going to tell you a story.

It's a true story, a personal story. It's a story about stories, about branding, about marketing and how they influence user experience. And like all stories it has its highs and its lows.

I began my career at Baskin-Robbins 31 Ice Cream in the early 1970s. Starting with a high school job at a company-owned store near the main office, it blossomed into an association that lasted 32 years—15 years on the payroll and the remainder as a consultant. It was a heady time and place for a young guy to break into the business world as Baskin-Robbins reached its pinnacle of success in the mid- to late-70s.

I spent most of my time on staff as a trainer, teaching an intensive three-week course to new franchisees. Each began the same way. After a morning of orientation and administration, we'd reconvene after lunch for the first instructional session. It was always a moment of high drama and tension. I'd doff my official blue blazer, roll up my sleeves and ask a question:

"What kind of company is Baskin-Robbins?"

There was invariably a pause as the class wondered what to make of such a baldly obvious question. Finally, someone would carefully suggest, "It's an ice cream company."

"Yes—we do make ice cream," I'd say. " But that's not what we primarily do."

Another pause. "It's a franchising company," someone else would call out.

"Yes, we do franchise stores—and that's why you're here," I'd reply. "But that's still not our essential business."

I can't remember anyone ever arriving at the answer: "Baskin-Robbins is a marketing company." And from there I'd explain why this was so very important.

This all came back to me today as I was reading Seth Godin's rollicking All Marketers Are Liars: The Power of Telling Authentic Stories in a Low-Trust World.I'll review the book another time, but for now, it's enough to say that Godin asserts that marketing is storytelling.

And the story I'm going to tell about Baskin-Robbins over the next few days will show how right Godin is.

Feeling Guilty

2005-06-13T17:21:00.000-07:00

Here I am, blogging all about user experience—and then I disappear for a couple of weeks! What kind of UX am I promoting?

Well, the good news is that I stumbled into an opportunity to contribute to a book and have been writing furiously. That's all I can say for now. I'll resume cooking in earnest here at UXCentric in two or three weeks.

Book Review: A Whole New [UXCentric] Mind

2005-06-01T19:39:00.000-07:00

Um, I added the "UXCentric" in the title. I'll soon explain why.

One of the highlights of my recent vacation was the chance to savor Daniel Pink's watershed new book, A Whole New Mind: Moving from the Information Age to the Conceptual Age.

I'm sure my fellow hotel guests wondered about me as I read the bright orange book (head enthusiastically nodding agreement) during the afternoon wine and cheese hour. The next day, I couldn't help myself and dug out the cell phone to recommend the book to several colleagues. And Mrs. Centric had to graciously ask me to stop reading quotations every minute or two.

Yes, I enjoyed A Whole New Mind immensely. It's insightful, brilliantly concise, hands-on practical, well documented and written with Pink's always-enviable panache and style.

A quick synopsis from Pink's introduction:

This book describes a seismic—though as yet undetected—shift now underway in much of the advanced world. We are moving from an economy and a society built on the logical, linear, computerlike capabilities of the Information Age to an economy and a society based on the inventive, empathic, big-picture capabilities of what's rising in its place, the Conceptual Age. A Whole New Mind is for anyone who wants to survive and thrive in this emerging world...

If you're passionate about user experience, you're probably already aware of the shift that Pink describes. There have been various explanations; we're moving from Modern to Postmodern, there's a rise of a 'Creative Class' that's transforming society, or even that the world is flat. Pink's treatment is the most compelling and cogent thus far.

A Whole New Mind consists of two parts. In the first, Pink explores what's driving the cultural shift, including a must-read exposition of an alliterative trio of economic and social forces. In part two, Pink prescribes six abilities needed to negotiate and even flourish in the Conceptual Age—each with a "portfolio" of practical methods of putting them to work on the job and in your life.

These "six senses" as Pink calls them (Design, Story, Symphony, Empathy, Play and Meaning) are innately human traits and indeed comprise much of what it means to be human. Treasured throughout most of history but neglected in the Information Age, the senses need a champion in the 21st century—and Pink takes up the challenge.

The six senses are not only vital to business success, but they are also critical to UXCentricity, which at its core is committed to the benefit of end-users, aka "people." Run through that list again. It summarizes much of what we've been saying about user experience in recent years. Indeed, the rise of UX is a hallmark of the shift to the Conceptual Age. Even better, the traits take UX beyond the left-brain perspectives of mere usability and technical power to more fully address the humanity of our users.

That's why A Whole New Mind is so important. That's why my Clients will soon receive copies from me. And that's why you should read this book if you're at all interested in improving your users' experience.

Digital Prototyping for the Masses

2005-05-23T17:04:00.000-07:00

If you've read UXCentric for awhile, you know I'm obsessed with bringing end-users into the site design process. Since it's impractical to actually invite a few hundred thousand folks to join a project team, I employ many of the usual methods to gather user perspectives—surveys, usability tests, card sorts and prototype testing (among others).

I'm a big fan of Carolyn Snyder's Paper Prototyping: The Fast and Easy Way to Design and Refine User Interfaces, but I have to admit that (1) paper prototyping is a hard sell to some Clients and (2) I'd rather put digital prototypes in front of end-users much sooner in the design cycle. So way back when—while at a big consultancy during the dot-com era—I began exploring ways to do the latter.

After much tinkering and debate with colleagues, I devised a method of using Adobe Acrobat to quickly create interactive prototypes from my Visio wireframes. The process requires no coding and is about as easy as creating paper prototypes.

That's the subject of my two-part "User Advocate" column, Interactive Prototyping, at Kelly Goto's always-interesting gotoreport at gotomedia. I begin by making a case for digital prototypes in general and PDF prototypes in detail. You can then try out a sample prototype or even build your own by following a step-by-step tutorial through the process.

And since I think the world of Kelly and all she's done for Web design, I'll toss in a plug for the new edition of her outstanding book, Web Redesign 2.0: Workflow That Works. Full of practical advice hammered out in the crucible of real world experience, this is a book that belongs on your desk.

I'm truly pleased to share my ideas about PDF prototyping with the UX community and look forward to your comments.

The Importance of the Little Things

2005-05-19T11:00:00.000-07:00

You're on vacation and just arrived in a small town you've never visited. You're famished. Would you eat here?

Eat where? The place looks abandoned!

No way! It looks like the only food this place serves is a knuckle sandwich.

Sure. I like to live dangerously.

Only on the recommendation of a trusted individual.

Although the setting may differ, we've all faced similar situations when traveling. If you're in a big city and need guidance, you're likely to reach for one of those freebie publications in your room—you know, the ones sponsored by the local "Visitors and Convention Bureau" or Chamber of Commerce. Although packed with gushing ads, you can usually find a map and a list of restaurant descriptions. Or if you're high-rollin', you might call the hotel concierge.

But if you're visiting a small or out-of-the-way town, you might be forced to resort to your own wits to find a good meal.

That's what we expected to do when we rolled into Pinos Altos, New Mexico, a small historic town (population 3,500) just outside of Silver City (population about 10,000). But thanks to the savvy Silver City Chamber and our gracious hosts at the Bear Creek Cabins, we had a world-class experience.

At check-in, Bear Creek's manager, Daniel, pulled out the Chamber's 11x17-inch single-sheet visitor's guide. One side boasted a map of the surrounding area with suggestions for day trips and excursions; the other, maps of Silver City and Pinos Altos with points of interest clearly indicated and described.

And that wasn't all. Using highlighters, Daniel sketched the best routes into and out of the town, made suggestions for local adventures, marked the locations of the best restaurants (along with Wal-Mart and Albertsons) and offered to make reservations for us. As a result of such thoughtfulness, our three days in Pinos Altos were an unexpected highlight of our Southwest vacation.

UXCentric as I am, I marveled at how such attention to the "little things" added up to create a noteworthy experience. Silver City's single-sheet visitor's guide looked pretty plain compared to the glitzy and glossy tomes we saw in Santa Fe, Taos and Sedona—but it was much more helpful. Why? Because it placed the visitor's perspective first and sweated the details. Those thick big-city guides may look good, but they're all from the perspective of merchants, restaurateurs and hoteliers.

Which brings us to the lesson at hand. As Web designers, we all give at least lip service to the idea of building sites from the user's perspective. Some of us take great pains to do everything we can to achieve this end. But let's not be naive. Web sites are always in a tug-of-war between the needs and goals of their sponsors/companies and end-users—and the victor is usually the one with the deepest pockets. (Hint: It ain't the users.) Being UXCentric means living in this tension every day.

That's why the little things are so important. I submit that for most sites it isn't the information architecture, visual design, copywriting and UI that promote the ideal user experience—though they all play essential roles. No, I think it's the sum of the little things that make the difference, the little things that demonstrate that someone took a great deal of effort to consider the user's perspective in the tiny and mundane details. What's especially cool about this is that these little things usually cost little to implement—just like that Silver City visitor's guide cost little to produce.

By the way, thanks to Daniel's recommendation, we had an outstanding meal at the Buckhorn Saloon (pictured above). Built in the 1860s, the Buckhorn has been operating continuously for more than 100 years. The experience of dining in a truly authentic Old West setting (no fake theming here) adds flavor to the excellent steaks, prime rib and seafood. If you're ever near Silver City, don't miss it.

Getting to Know You

2005-05-16T17:26:00.000-07:00

No offense to the Chamber of Commerce, but Gallup, New Mexico is probably not one of the state's top attractions. Even so, its strategic location in the center of Native American culture is wholly unique. "An estimated 75 percent of the world's Native American arts, crafts and silver jewelry is traded in Gallup," says the Chamber—and given the scores of traders, retailers, pawns, manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors we saw along Gallup's classic seven-mile stretch of Route 66, I'd say that's a conservative estimate. If you love Native American arts, Gallup is the place to visit.

And while you're there, you simply have to eat at Earl's Restaurant, serving up hearty American fare to locals and tourists alike on Route 66 since 1947.

While the food was good, what sets Earl's apart is that it's also a peripatetic bazaar of Native American jewelry and crafts. While you eat, local vendors visit your table and display their wares. Now, I'm from L.A. where we occasionally have cultists of various stripes trying to sell roses at restaurants—and so I have to admit I wasn't initially thrilled by the nearly non-stop parade of sellers. While the respectful and polite manner of the vendors (not to mention their oft-beautiful goods) was winsome, I felt awkward.

Yet in looking around, I noticed that most of the other patrons (especially other Native Americans) took the vending in stride. Indeed, there seemed to be a protocol or etiquette involved. Almost without exception, the locals would stop eating and thoughtfully examine the vendors' goods—often handling them, commenting on their craftsmanship and engaging in conversation. A little light went on in my head: "Respond with the same respect that I'm receiving."

So I emulated my fellow diners—and it was like magic. The interactions changed from being interruptions to genuine pleasures. I learned a bit about Native American jewelry, had some conversations with some very fine people and enjoyed myself immensely. Even better, it prepared me for many similar situations in Santa Fe and Taos.

That night, it hit me: How many Web sites have made me feel as awkward as I first did at Earl's?

It's very easy to become so wrapped up in designing and producing a great site that we forget that we're inviting our users into another world or culture that may be unfamiliar to them. Our enthusiasm for the content and our rich domain knowledge can inadvertently lead to opaque information architecture, unclear navigation and overuse of jargon. As a result, our valued users can feel excluded or inadequate.

Over the last year, I've been working on the redesign of a truly wonderful collectibles site populated by thousands of ardent collectors. Our user research revealed that the site was kept afloat almost solely by hardcore collectors; novice and intermediate collectors were poorly represented. Remembering my first visits to the site, I immediately knew why: The site was impenetrable due to its heavy use of insider terminology, a structure that assumed expert domain knowledge and a lack of any content that could welcome and guide newcomers. None of this was purposeful, but simply grew out of the site team's own enthusiasm.

What the site lacked was a way to introduce novice and casual collectors to an unfamiliar culture. They felt awkward and unsure of how to proceed, just like I did at Earl's. We needed to provide cues and insights into our world.

Phase 1 of our new design completely revamped the IA, simplified the navigation (even while adding new content), provided more cues to subsurface content and employed plain language. And although we have yet to implement content specifically for new and casual collectors, visits to the site have leapt by nearly 20% in the three months since its launch.

The lesson: Help new users enter the world of your site by embedding cues, hints, models and guides in your IA, navigation, content and design.

The Travelling UXCentrist

2005-05-12T16:56:00.000-07:00

To renew one's appreciation for excellent user experiences, there's nothing like traveling. Finding yourself in unfamiliar settings, unsure of what to do or where to go, is an invaluable way to rediscover what it means to be a "user."

Over the last couple of weeks or so, Mrs. Centric and I explored the American Southwest by car and road bike. We visited towns small and large, restaurants haute and not, attractions grand and neglected, hotels basic and plush. And while I tried to keep it from being a busman's holiday, we couldn't help but reflect on some of the experiences we had as users. Over the next few days, I'll share some of these observations. Stay tuned. You might be surprised!

UX as Quality

2005-04-23T19:18:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I'm supposed to be on vacation, but I just spotted this outstanding post where Peter Merholz discusses UX as a quality rather than a discipline. It's must reading. I added a quick comment there in lieu of a full response here at UXCentric. I hope to get back to this in a couple of weeks.

UXVacation

2005-04-23T15:01:00.000-07:00

I've finished up (barely) the project that's kept me offline for the last week or so—and now I'm off on my first extended vacation in a decade.

Instead of posting here, I'll be road-tripping and road-biking around the great American Southwest. Look for my return here around May 15.

Still Busy

2005-04-18T09:59:00.000-07:00

Has it been almost a week since my last post? How did that happen? My apologies for my silence here.

Actually, I've been very busy with a fun little project that I need to wrap up before my vacation next week. I'll try to squeeze in a few moments to write about some of the insights I've had.

A Little Busy

2005-04-12T15:48:00.000-07:00

Yep, things are a little busy at Rancho UXCentric, so posting is light. I'll be back later this week, after I catch my breath.

Friday Favorite: Copernic Desktop Search

2005-04-07T21:39:00.000-07:00

When it comes to good information on IA, UX, IxD and related subjects, I happily admit to being a packrat. Five years ago, I began saving everything I could find online as PDFs (Adobe Acrobat) and now have more than 2,500 files in my research folder. Yeah, it's obsessive—and a terrific resource provided I can quickly find what I need.

Over the years, I tried a number of different methods for indexing and searching my cache, but never found one that hit the spot. More or less by default, I ended up relying on Acrobat's Catalog function despite its lumbering pace and less than optimal results reporting.

Then I discovered Copernic Desktop Search (CDS).

The surprise was that it took me so long. I've been a happy user of Copernic Agent since its 1.x days, but somehow missed the debut of CDS. Better late than never.

What first attracted me to CDS was its ability to index PDF files and to refine searches to specific file types, dates, sizes and folders. CDS has since added indexing for e-mail (Outlook, Outlook Express and Eudora), music, video and pictures. Depending upon the scope, searches take only a few seconds. Results can be sorted by date, file type and folder and are easily grouped. You can preview specific files within CDS itself. After the initial index is built, CDS is remarkably well behaved; ongoing updates are nearly imperceptible. And it all is wrapped in Copernic's straightforward, no-nonsense UI.

CDS doesn't have the publicity machines of its competitors at Google and Yahoo! And it doesn't have the premium cachet of X1. But in a desktop-to-desktop shootout, I think CDS comes out on top.

The Music of Wireframes

2005-04-06T21:42:00.000-07:00

Every year I accompany a local choir on the piano for its spring musical. It's a way for me to keep my chops, even though it's usually difficult to find the time. While practicing today, I had a thought: Wireframes are like a musical score.

Think about it. A score isn't music, just as a wireframe isn't a Web page. A score tells the musician what notes to play, when to play them, how to play them. A wireframe tells the project team what content to include, its placement and how it behaves. A score combines the intricacies of rhythmic meter, audio dynamics, phrasing and pitch into a single document that guides the production of the composition. As I've said before, a wireframe integrates visual design, information structure, interaction design and more into a document that guides the production of the Web page.

And catch this: A musical score is not meant to be played in lockstep or slavish devotion to the notation. Doing so may be a technical accomplishment (and may even "work") but it will lack art and humanity. A score must be interpreted by the talent and soul of the musician to reach into the hearts of listeners. I submit that this must be true for wireframes as well. You can build a site that looks and acts just like wireframes, and it even might "do the job"—but the lack of meaning, of human expression, of art will rightfully ensure its obscurity.

There's more. When I accompany the choir or friends who are soloists, the interpretation and production of the music are my sole responsibility. But Web design is more like an orchestra. An orchestra has strings, percussion, brass and reeds; all have differing qualities and demand different skills. So does a Web team. There are visual designers, engineers, producers, information architects, strategists and more—and, as we all know, our crafts are very different in character and performance.

Here's where things get very interesting. Someone has to bring all of it together. The brass section can't play the symphony alone, nor can it dictate that strings play like brass. Programmers—as Alan Cooper so vividly depicts in The Inmates Are Running the Asylum—can't and shouldn't dictate how a site is designed and built (any more than IAs, producers or any other member of the project team).

No, to play a symphony, an orchestra requires a conductor, an integrator, an extraordinary individual who understands not only the abilities and intricacies of its sections but who also carries the vision, the fire to wrestle a group of disparate individuals and instruments into the unified body required to turn sounds into art.

We don't have conductors in Web design. Not yet. Maybe that's the direction UX is taking.

One more contrast and I'm done. The system of musical notation used today was hammered out over the centuries into an exacting standard that is capable of communicating the finest nuances of expression—all at a glance. And it is fully accepted as the standard by all musicians, who can be a temperamental lot.

Do we need similar a similar standard of notation in Web design? Great question, isn't it?

UPDATE, April 7: Dan Brown adds wonderful insights on this topic—including the differences between music notation and wireframes (something I was too sleepy to explore above!). Many thanks.

The Problem with Wireframes

2005-04-05T22:24:00.000-07:00

I've written before that I enjoy creating wireframes, but that doesn't mean that I see them as ideal tools.

The very characteristic that makes wireframes so helpful—that they integrate content, engineering, visual design, information structure, interaction design and UX in a single document—is also their biggest liability. Expecting a single individual to possess all of the requisite skills to create them is unrealistic.

A solution would be to make wireframing a tightly collaborative effort, with practitioners of the various arts working side by side. But have you ever worked on a project with such a wealth of time and resources? I thought not.

One of the most intriguing alternatives to wireframes are page description diagrams, introduced in 2002 by Dan Brown in an important Boxes and Arrows article (which included this excellent poster). And yesterday, D. Keith Robinson added his own perspective and experiences with page description diagrams. It's a must-read—and includes some thoughtful comments.

I haven't yet tried page description diagrams, but typically complete what I call "page descriptions" before drawing wireframes. These text documents inventory page content and interaction, summarizing its purpose and role, listing every element, and specifying all entrances and exits. While they feel like a duplication of effort (and can be a real headache to keep current during multiple iterations), engineers especially appreciate them as a source for more detailed information than wireframe callouts permit.

The Independent Eye

2005-04-04T16:05:00.000-07:00

A raging discussion in the SIGIA mailing list has me scratching my head.

Beginning as an innocent question from someone looking for information architects or UX designers in New York, the thread quickly evolved into a freewheeling discussion on employment issues. And what really puzzles me is the emphasis on full-time, traditional employment rather than freelancing.

Hasn't anyone read Dan Pink's Free Agent Nation: The Future of Working for Yourself? Or any of Tom Peters' books?

I don't mean to diss the majority of UX professionals who are gainfully employed. Bully for them! But the age of perceiving full-time employment as somehow better or more secure than independence is over. Those of us who suffered under dot-com layoffs ought to be the first to understand that.

Whatever our employment status, we're all independent contractors/freelancers/professional service firms today and need to think and conduct ourselves accordingly.

After more than ten years as an independent, I think this boils down to two key strategies:

Do everything you can to build your knowledge, expertise and experience.

Do everything you can to build as big a personal network of quality people as possible.

The first means weighing every job or contract possibility by its potential to advance your marketability. Will you gain additional experience? Does it expand your palette of skills? Are there excellent opportunities for training or education, especially on someone else's dime? Will it stretch and challenge your abilities? Is it a WOW! or ultra-cool project that you'll be able to brag about? Will you work with someone you respect? If so, go for it with gusto, whether it means traditional employment or working as a contractor.

The problem with traditional employment is that it's too easy to become ingrown. Your personal network can easily shrink to those you work with every day. That's the kiss of death in today's economy where jobs are much less secure—and new jobs/engagements are so often linked to the people you know.

Six years ago, I was there. I had given up my independent practice to work for a long-term Client. We did award-winning stuff, but I found myself out of the loop—until a reading of Tom Peters' The Brand You 50: Or: Fifty Ways to Transform Yourself from an 'Employee' into a Brand That Shouts Distinction, Commitment, and Passion! convinced me I needed to make a move. I'm forever grateful to the Director of IA at a (now-defunct) Web consultancy who brought me in as a contractor. It led to a network of contacts that continues to yield much work.

So when evaluating a job or engagement, ask yourself questions like these: Will this grow my personal network? Are these the kind of people I want to include in my network? Are these people well-connected in my field? Will I have opportunities to meet and work with a variety of talented people? Are there potential mentors here? If you like the answers, this might be the place for you.

I love freelancing, but if a "real job" came along with terrific possibilities for gaining experience and contacts, I might take it—although I'd still view it much like a long-term "freelance" engagement. There are too many exciting things going on to remain in one place for too long!

Friday Favorite: Creating Passionate Users

2005-03-31T18:58:00.000-08:00

I'm simply mad about Creating Passionate Users.

A teamblog effort by the the authors of O'Reilly's Head First Books, the authors describe themselves as

[P]assionate about the brain and metacognition, most especially—how the brain works and how to exploit it for better learning and memory. Oh yeah, and how to recognize when someone else (including one of us) is applying brain-based techniques to get you to do something.

Team captain, the fabulous Kathy Sierra, explains more about CPU in its first post:

Our passion is the brain, but we'll talk about the core elements we believe you need to inspire customers/users including lessons learned from cognitive science, psychology, video/computer game design, entertainment (Hollywood), and yes, even advertising still has something to say (although advertising no longer works well, it still holds the key to some of the things that DO work... more later).

I was hooked from the start—and if you're not yet, you will be. Just check some of these post titles:

These aren't lightweight posts; most are lengthy and will surely get you cogitating (if not downright inspired) with practical advice. And it does it all with a spirit of fun, enthusiasm, energy and passion.

In short, Creating Passionate Users creates passionate users. I'm certainly one!

Why I Love Folksonomies

2005-03-30T19:04:00.000-08:00

Because I am not my users.

I guess I've always known this, but it hit home today during a blue-sky planning meeting for a new project. I was subjecting the team to my usual ~~exhausting~~ exhaustive start-up questionnaire when we reached this question: "Do you use meta tags within the site to catalog content properties, etc.?" This is my entree to discussing thesauri, controlled vocabularies and the like.

The initial response was less than enthusiastic, citing workload, a lack of resources, the scope of the effort and so on—all from the team's perspective. So I made a fast U-turn.

"What concerns me is that your users don't have the same domain knowledge as you," I suggested. "They're coming to the site with imperfect information, modulated by transmission through media and other individuals. They're going to be searching for terms that you never imagined. I just want to be sure they can find what they're looking for."

That got the team rolling. And I said to myself, "What we need to do is let users create the tags for our content. Mix them with a good thesaurus and we're on Broadway!"

I don't know if it's practical, but here's something I'd love to try. User-centered design rightly emphasizes going to the source, to end-users. We typically do this with interviews, contextual observation, usability tests, surveys, card sorts and other user analysis tools. Can we add "folksonomy creation exercises" to the list—that is, invite representative users to assign tags/labels to our content? They wouldn't have to sort it or taxonomize it; we'd simply ask, "What would you call this? How would you label it? What words would you use to describe this?" We could then incorporate the results into the site thesaurus and metadata.

Has anyone done anything like this?

UX and "Design Thinking"

2005-03-29T18:39:00.001-08:00

A March 8 article at BusinessWeekOnline shows that the suits may be starting to get the UXCentric message. Check this statement:

The truth is we're moving from a knowledge economy that was dominated by technology into an experience economy controlled by consumers and the corporations who empathize with them.

Not bad, huh? And it gets better with lots of quotes from generally-accepted authorities at B-schools and a nice plug for Dan Pink's new book, A Whole New Mind: Moving from the Information Age to the Conceptual Age (which is definitely on my reading list).

But I get a little uneasy at statements like these:

[Y]ou can design your company to generate products and services that provide great consumer experiences, top-line revenue growth, and fat profit margins.

It's time to embrace a new value proposition based on creating -- indeed, often co-creating -- new products and services with customers that fill their needs, make them happy, and make companies and shareholders rich.

Call me naive if you must, but in my book UXCentricity doesn't begin with the quest for profits.

Now, I love a good profit as much as anyone else (and know that generating a return for owners is the purpose of business), but great user experiences don't spring from those with dollar signs obscuring their vision. Outstanding user experiences are created by those who are primarily obsessed with delighting their end users.

If you see UX as a means to "top-line revenue growth and fat profit margins," you've taken your eye off of the ball—and, I submit, you won't provide a wonderful UX or enjoy those desired financial returns. User experience must first be about people, and people are experts at sniffing out companies who see them only as means to a financial end.

But make satisfying your customers and end-users your primary goal—indeed, to exceed their expectations and make their lives easier, more enjoyable and more meaningful (even if it might "hurt" potential profits)—and you'll end up with a first-class UX, madly loyal uers and a healthy bank account.

That's the kind of (UXCentric) thinking that will dominate the coming decades.

Via elearningpost.

Called Strike

2005-03-28T18:34:00.000-08:00

News about bad UX travels fast.

Meet Irving Zeiger, age 86. He's had the same front row seats at Dodger Stadium for 43 years—the same seats since the stadium opened in 1962.

Not any more. Let the gifted Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times tell you about the phone call Irving recently received from the Dodgers:

The Dodgers had moved the dugout closer to the field and installed four new rows of seats behind it. But Zeiger need not worry, he could retain his four stadium-best seats directly above the new dugout.

It would cost him only $120,000.

You read that right.

It would cost him only $120,000.

Irv Zeiger has cheered for Koufax, screamed for Gibson, pumped his fist for Piazza.

But no Dodger has ever blown him away like that woman on the phone.

"I thought she was joking," he said. "She wanted $120,000 from me to keep those seats I've had for half my life?"

Zeiger was scheduled to pay $20,000 for his four seats, so the new figure constituted a 500% increase.

To move up four rows.

Here's a man who has spent untold tens of thousands of dollars on the Dodgers. He has eaten thousands of Dodger Dogs, shared his four seats with family and friends for more than four decades. His was the first check for the Los Angeles Dodgers that Brooklyn Dodger owner Walter O'Malley received. He has been an exemplary paying Dodger fan for half of his life.

You know what the Dodgers should have done, don't you? They should have given Irv those new front row seats for the same price as his originals—and kept that arrangement in place for life.

Yet the Dodgers (under the penny-pinching new ownership of Frank McCourt) reward him by "offering" the equivalent new seats at five times the cost of his old ones. Irv is going to keep his old seats—but he's going to protest by not attending opening day. He loves baseball, so what else can he do? Plaschke concludes:

To [Zeiger], it's not that his seats are no longer special, although they aren't, what with a wall and waitresses and four rich rows now separating him from the field his money helped build.
To him, it's the organization that is no longer special.

"I just don't feel like the Dodgers are my team anymore," Zeiger said. "I doubt that they are even L.A.'s team anymore. It's no longer about a relationship. It's about a business."

Under the O'Malley's, the Dodgers were UXCentric to the core—more accurately, they were fancentric and definitely ahead of their time. And the fans like Irving rewarded them with record-breaking attendance and diehard loyalty. That's the power of UXCentricity.

And apparently it's something the current Dodger owners think they can do without.

(Photo by Gary Friedman, LATimes.)

Cooking Up Some UX Stew

2005-03-28T11:47:00.000-08:00

I love what I do. I mean, I love what I do.

But sometimes I hate it.

I've wondered if this was due to some kind of neurotic or masochistic streak in me, that I enjoyed beating myself up for a living. But thanks to a fascinating post by Jeffery Veen today, I'm feeling much better. I mean, misery loves company, right?

In thinking a bit about Malcolm Gladwell's best-selling Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, Veen describes his design method in this way:

I build up a tremendous amount of background data, let it synthesize, then "blink" it out as a fully-formed solution.

Now that sounds so smooth and elegant, but it's not. Here's Veen's typical process:

Talk to everybody I possibly can about the problem.

Read everything that would even be remotely related to what I'm doing. Hang charts, graphs, diagrams, and screenshots all over my office.

Observe user research; recall past research.

Stew in it all, panic as deadline approaches, stop sleeping, stop eating.

Be struck with an epiphany. Instantly see the solution. Curse my tools for being too slow as I frantically get it all down in a document.

Sleep for three days.

Hey, me too!

I added bold type to step four because to me this is the crux of the process. And I picked that word "crux" with great care. Dictionary.com tells us that "crux" is "Probably short for Medieval Latin crux (interpretum), torment (of interpreters), from Latin crux, cross." Torment. Yep, that's right. This period of torment, of stewing is the cross that I (and apparently Veen) must bear as a UXCentrist.

The research phase of UX design is thrilling. Hitting the books. Mining the Web. Scouring the SIG archives. Endlessly interviewing Clients with exclamations of glee at key discoveries. Surveying users and poring over the stats. Designing and conducting card sorts and usability tests. Observing and talking with users. Writing summary reports and making presentations. Man, I love that stuff.

And when it's time to put this wealth of knowledge to work, I hit the wall. I pace, I fill up wastebaskets with false starts. I curse. I stare at my display for hours. I snap at the dogs. I read and reread my notes and reports, hoping for some kind of miracle. I question my abilities, my credentials as a UXCentrist. I expect my Clients to sack me and demand refunds. My blood runs cold. I despair.

Finally, after days of torment—blink!—it happens. The epiphany, as Veen describes it. Suddenly, I'm a genius! I crank out site maps, wireframes and other deliverables like a dervish. Multiple solutions (once so rare) leap to my mind so fast I can't get them down on paper. I'm obsessed, even manic about my work, chortling as it rapidly takes shape. Clients express their amazement at my pace.

Wow. What a ride. What a great way to make a living!

Friday Favorite: The Pew Internet and American Life Project

2005-03-25T09:33:00.000-08:00

One of the things I miss most about the vainglorious dot-com heyday is access to premium research. At the long-gone Web consultancy where I worked, we had subscriptions to all of the big names—an embarrassment of riches. With some chicanery, I managed to keep access to some of the accounts for a year or so after our office closed. Going back to school gave me student access to some great stuff. But, alas, even that has passed.

That's why I love the Pew Internet and American Life Project so much. (I've written about it before, but not as a Friday Favorite.) It's mission:

The Pew Internet & American Life Project produces reports that explore the impact of the Internet on families, communities, work and home, daily life, education, health care, and civic and political life. The Project aims to be an authoritative source on the evolution of the Internet through collection of data and analysis of real-world developments as they affect the virtual world.

The PIP has published more than 200 reports thus far on topics ranging from demographics to "online activities and pursuits" to e-government to education. All are based upon the Project's own surveys and research, sometimes conducted with partners. Presentations on many topics are available and stats junkies can dig into the raw data. It's truly a treasure.

And here's the the best part: It's all free! Reports and presentations are easily downloaded in PDF/Acrobat format. You can sign up for e-mail notification of new reports. You can choose from a number of RSS feeds on various topics. There's even a blog-like commentary page that offers additional insights

My only difficulty with the Pew Internet Project? Keeping up with all of the great stuff they produce!

UX on the Cutting Room Floor

2005-03-23T22:43:00.000-08:00

Maybe I shouldn't have been so surprised at The Scenario's poor UX.

Jeffrey Veen tells us of his experience on a panel judging interactive designs created by some of the world's top agencies and brands:

As I clicked through the hundreds of submissions, I started to get an uneasy feeling. Why was all of this so bad? I mean, it was really bad. Could it be that what I have always believed to be good interaction differs dramatically from what "professionals" believe?

Veen's list of observed trends in the entries (he dubs them "a summary of web design in 1997") is damning. His final one hits the bullseye:

User-centered design vs. marketing and image. Most sites had no sense whatsoever of how to engage a potential customer through the Web.

And his conclusion is chilling: "These are the experiences most people have on the web, and use to form their opinions of what this new medium can be."

Here's what really concerns me. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that these top agencies had UX specialists on their project teams. It's no stretch for me to imagine that excellent user discovery was part of the design process. Conscientious UXCentrists did their work, presented their findings, wrote their reports and perhaps even wireframed or otherwise participated in initial UX design.

Yet their efforts ended up on the cutting room floor.

I've been there. I'm there now. I pour my heart into my work and see it dribble away under the assault of timelines, budgets and "business as usual." They say old habits die hard—and that's especially true for old corporate, marketing and IT habits. Designers, branders and coders may read their Cluetrains, they may Re-Imagine, they may talk of Purple Cows, but you can't turn a battleship on a dime.

A few years ago, we had to make a strong case for sound UX design. Well, we've been heard (as Lou Rosenfeld points out so well). IA, UX and interaction design are now on the Web design table. Although picked last, we're finally part of the team. And now is when the real work begins—the work of changing minds and hearts. We need to show, demonstrate and prove (over and over again) that UX can't be part of the game, but is the game itself.

Truly amazing interactive designs and user experiences come from organizations wholly infected with UXCentricity. And we're not there yet.

Missing the Mark

2005-03-23T21:39:00.000-08:00

Clickz reports today on the unveiling of a "Sprite-branded marketing campaign targeting teens today, showcasing the first fruits of its newly-expanded Branded Entertainment and Experiences Team."
The mini-site stars Sprite's mildly amusing/annoying Miles Thirst action figure, who hosts a basic media site featuring playlists from ten top DJs. Users can add Miles-styled emoticons while IMing on MSN Messenger and listen to new music on the Sprite-branded "Thirst" radio.

Gayle Troberman is the director of MSN's Branded Entertainment and Experiences Team which works, says Clickz, "to create new opportunities for marketers to talk 'to' people, not 'at' them." Troberman says,

There's nothing more interesting than a consumer inviting a brand into their world. As a marketer, you have to be creative about adding value, and make sure you give them something they don't have. Once you do that, it's magic.

Uh-huh. Talk is cheap. Can the MSN Team deliver?

Because I do a lot of work on sites for children and teens, I've been reading the Nielsen Norman Group's new report, Teenagers on the Web: Usability Guidelines for Creating Compelling Sites for Teens. Its list of 60 usability design guidelines strongly confirms what we already know: Creating sites for teens is one of the greatest challenges on the Web. Like adolesence itself, successful teen sites must walk a fine line between childhood and adulthood—all the while maintaining an ultra-cool attitude that doesn't pander.

Given that usability does not equal UX, how does The Scenario measure up? We'll apply a few of the NN Group's design guidelines:

To attract attention, consider applying a few graphical techniques commonly associated with advertising. While the NN report affirms that teens appreciate "visually stylish" sites and are otherwise quick to wander, The Scenario's brushed metal visual design is remarkably prosaic and oh-so-90s. I was really surprised.

Use standard-looking GUI components.Ouch! Take a look at the selection window at the left side. Its thumbwheel is not only non-standard, but is inoperative. Instead, you navigate the list itself with rollovers. Weird.

Accommodate a low-tech audience. Design multimedia for your audience's connection speed. The NN Group found that teens are often relegated to school computers (which often share a narrow pipeline) or hand-me-down systems at home. Since it's based on streaming media, The Scenario is likely to be a letdown for many in its audience.

Don't make users install any additional plug-ins; provide non-multimedia content alternatives instead.Thirst Radio requires Windows Media Player—and using the Miles emoticons requires MSN Messenger. Teens are reluctant to install plugins due to technical concerns and, in many cases, are not permitted to do so. School computers (because of their locations) often lack speakers. In short, multimedia is The Scenario's game—and if you don't have it, you don't play.
Avoid overly distracting promotional elements. Use sound wisely and in reasonable amounts. Avoid repetitive audio loops. Hoo-boy. While The Scenario does permit users to quickly stop its background beats, there is no way to silence Mr. Thirst, who continually chimes in in his inimitable style. My Doberman barked at him.

On the other hand, The Scenario does some things well. Text is held to a useful minimum. Other than noted above, controls are intuitive. The Scenario promises to stay up-to-the-minute with the latest tunes (very important). There are smooth links to the MSN Music store.

Yet The Scenario is underwhelming. The visual design is sparse, the content merely adequate, the creativity thin. There's nothing compelling, captivating or unique here. Rather than "inviting" The Scenario into their world, I suspect teens will be quick to move along to other sites that show better understanding of their world.

Process and Story

2005-03-22T12:42:00.000-08:00

I'm fond of quoting a motivational plaque I saw early in my career: "Process is the reward"—that is, that there are intrinsic payoffs in the application of a sound process that enhance the end result. Put more simply, how you go about doing something is at least as important as the final product. So I long sought the "ideal" process for whatever I was doing in my career, from polishing floors all the way to Web user experience.

The problem is that process is cruel and fickle. Oh, it's great in objective realms. The way you polish a floor, for example, absolutely determines its degree of sparkle. Science, technology and industry are wholly dependent on proven processes that are prerequisites to the desired results.

But when you turn to subjective arenas, watch out! No sooner than a process seems to prove itself, it can turn on you. That's especially true in a discipline like UX, where we deal with intangibles and the inner world—not to mention variations in budgets, timelines and resources. Even so, there's no question that how you go about creating a user experience does have a significant impact on its excellence. That's why I've developed (and teach) my own process—one that has enjoyed success.

And therein lies the danger of process. Because a process can be effective, we're tempted to institutionalize it, formalize it, make it sacrosanct. In so doing, we hinder the skepticism, free thinking and creativity from which the effective process sprung—and we defy reality, for no single process can adequately encompass the variables we encounter as UXCentrists. One size does not fit all.

To avoid the process temptation, I've been thinking about my projects as stories, stories shaped around the quest for ~~the Holy Grail~~ an excellent UX. Like classic human narratives, the stories have common movements but differ in setting, characterization, theme and specific details. This approach helps me see my process as a broad framework rather than a stultifying formula that limits imagination. I'm free to flex and bend, expand and contract in the service of the tale. And because story is so ingrained in the human psyche, I suspect this pays subtle dividends in the resulting UX. For what is UX if it is not the story of a user's adventure with our product or Web site?

The Usable Councilman

2005-03-21T18:20:00.000-08:00

A tip of the UXCentric hat to Eric Garcetti, councilman for the 13th district here in Los Angeles.

Three hours after Matt posted a terrific and balanced photo essay on blogging.la that described some of the problems at L.A.'s beautiful but blighted Echo Park (not so far from UXCentric's world headquarters), Mr. Garcetti responded with a thoughtful and practical comment. And it's not the first time.

I wish my councilman was so tuned in and UXCentric. But he's too busy running for mayor.

Is UX Dead?

2005-03-21T12:16:00.000-08:00

In 1897, Mark Twain wrote (in a widely-corrupted quotation), "This report of my death was an exaggeration." That's what I thought when I read this provocative post by Peter Merholz:

I am left with the thought that the phrase "user experience," as a meaningful term describing practice and concern, is dead.

Dead dead dead...

"User experience" feels like a term, and concept, whose meaningful time is over. I don't know what (if anything) will take its place. But there's clearly a lack of interest and effort in meaningful evolution. The energy seems to be behind the terms and concepts of "information architecture," "interaction design," and "usability engineering." Maybe we should take that as a sign.

Yeah, it's a sign, all right—a sign of nearsightedness and narcissism.

I don't disagree with Peter. It does seem like the term, "user experience," has languished. It lacks a champion to trumpet its value. As of yet, there's no Don't Make Me Think! or Polar Bear Book that ignites an audience, no Jakob-Nielsen-like proponent who passionately presses its cause. As Peter points out, the organizations that should be doing so "have only done an extreme disservice by rendering the term irrelevant."

But that doesn't mean that the term is dead. Information architecture, interaction design and usability engineering indeed have more energy behind them, powered by the voluble cognoscenti of these various disciplines. But they're missing the forest for the trees, the tools for the final product. It's OK, even commendable, to be enthusiastic about your discipline—but if that passion blinds you to the bigger picture, you're doing yourself a disservice.

And the bigger picture, the end product, the forest, is and must be superb user experiences.

No less an authority than Donald Norman recognized this when he coined the term. Peter quotes him in a long-ago post:

I invented the term because I thought Human Interface and usability were too narrow: I wanted to cover all aspects of the person's experience with a system, including industrial design, graphics, the interface, the physical interaction, and the manual.

In response, Peter surmised that UX is "so broad in the disciplines and people it requires, that it was inevitable for folks to reduce its meaning in order to get their arms around it." That scope is reflected in my own definition of UX: "User experience is the totality of an individual's interaction with and response to a business, product or service in any and every medium."

Sure, the scope is vast—but that's no reason to retire the term.

And, damn it, the very breadth of the discipline what is so cool about UX. It forces us to our knees. It makes us admit that creating outstanding user experiences is more than one person can handle. It pushes us out of our cloistered single disciplines—IA, IxD, HCI, human factors, usability, visual design, programming, et al—into the collaborative communities of creativity required for our mutual success and survival.

"UX" dead? It's just slumbering, awaiting those willing to grapple with its size and preach its gospel.

Wireframe UX

2005-03-18T12:55:00.000-08:00

I love creating wireframes. They're my reward for doing all of the prerequisite grunt work of Client need analysis, user analysis, information architecture and mapping. While sometimes arduous, wireframing is the time when you first see all of your work come together.

Since they're also eagerly anticipated by Clients and stakeholders, it's important that wireframes provide a positive user experience. They're primarily communication tools that depict site layout, navigational elements, content priorities and the site interface. They also act as integrators, bringing content, engineering, visual design, information structure and UX together in a single document. Their most important function is to create a prototype, a "shared space" that facilitates collaboration and innovation. To that end, it's important that wireframes be as clear as possible.

Dan Brown helps us reach that goal with his outstanding poster, Representing Data in Wireframes (PDF). It's a huge (three by six feet) guide to "techniques for representing sample data and information in a wireframe, the risks associated with each technique, and best practices for applying them." Although you'd need a large format printer to actually produce the thing, it's perfectly readable at high magnification in Adobe Acrobat. Get it while it's hot.

Friday Favorite: Alertbox

2005-03-18T12:52:00.000-08:00

Great usability alone doesn't make a great user experience. But a great user experience must have great usability. That's one reason why today's Friday Favorite is Jakob Nielsen's Alert Box: Current Issues in Web Usability.

Love him, hate him or grudgingly acknowledge his contributions, Nielsen is one of our most powerful advocates for Web usability. Sanctimonious and self-promoting at times, he never misses an opportunity to preach the gospel of great usability to anyone who will listen. And for this we owe him a great debt.

Alertbox is Nielsen's biweekly bully pulpit, the place where he shares his latest ideas, summarizes the findings of the Nielsen Norman Group's helpful and reasonably-priced research reports (thanks!) and offers practical guidance on all things usability.

It's must reading for UXCentrists.

Attention Corporate Bloggers!

2005-03-17T20:03:00.000-08:00

Chris Locke—the Chief Blogging Officer—has a suggestion for companies that would like to co-opt blogging by making it about themselves, not end-users and customers:

I'd like to not-so-humbly hint to all the suits out there in CorporateLand who are wondering how they're going to "leverage" blogging in "their operations" that they should be paying close attention to what's going on just beneath the radar here on CBO. Those aren't Chinese subs, you fools! They're potential customers. But if you create blogs that don't tell stories, aren't the least bit funny or irreverent, but only read like thinly disguised advertising copy, then those potential customers are going to treat you like Chinese subs -- and send Tomahawk missiles straight up your RSS.

This is Locke at his Gonzo Marketing best. (You'll have to read the entire post to get the part about Chinese subs.)

Blog of the Month

2005-03-17T14:27:00.000-08:00

While the blogosphere is all abuzz about the recent announcements of this year's Webby Award winners, UXCentric is honored by its selection as the March Blog of the Month in TechSmith's Morae Newsletter.

TechSmith is the maker of two software products I wouldn't be without as a UXCentrist—the classic screen capture tool SnagIt (that I've used for years) and Camtasia Studio, a tool for capturing video screen activity that I've used in budget usability testing. Morae builds on Camtasia's abilities and is an "all-digital, software-based solution that records and synchronizes user and system data for usability analysis of software, Web sites, Intranets and e-Business applications." I'll be trying Morae soon and will post a review here at UXCentric.

Thanks to Carla and everyone at TechSmith!

In Your Wildest Dreams...

2005-03-17T14:09:00.000-08:00

Imagination is central to UXCentricity. Unfortunately, imaginative thinking is not a top priority in corporate America.

That's why one of the first questions I ask a project team is, "In your wildest dreams, with nothing to hold you back—budget, resources, time, even technology—what would you like this Web site to be?"

There is usually a moment or two of silence. I like to think that it's caused by a switch from left-brain to right-brain thinking, from biz-think to dream-think. Because Web teams consist of highly imaginative people, I know the pause isn't due to a lack of ability. It's due to the lack of on-the-job opportunities to dream big, to dream WOW! as Tom Peters might say.

The first response is usually pretty conservative, carefully couched to sound somewhat realistic. But that's all it takes to start the momentum. In minutes, wild-eyed proposals fly all over the room. People enthusiastically talk at the same time. New ideas spark more discussion. I type or write furiously, trying to get it all down while the fire is hot.

Before the flame flickers, I ask follow-ups that shift attention to the user: "In your users' wildest dreams, what would this site be like?" and "Tell me a story about how people will use this site." Both tap into the human need and ability to create narratives and spin tales—adding more fuel for the team's imagination.

This process begins with the team's dreams and ends with their perceptions of the users' dreams. By freeing the team's imagination, I help them "connect" with their users at the start of the project. More often than not, the conversation has profound impact on the future site. That's UXCentricity.

It takes only a simple question to remove the corporate cork from the imagination genie's bottle.

User-Friendly Typefaces

2005-03-15T11:35:00.000-08:00

Anne Van Wagener reports in today's Design Desk at PoynterOnline that Microsoft will ship six new typefaces specifically designed for on-screen reading beginning in 2006.

Oddly, you can't yet view these typefaces at Microsoft's Web site. (Linking to the appropriate ClearType Font Collection page yields only a "coming to a screen near you" teaser.) They're only available thus far in a promotional booklet, "Now Read This."

Happily, Van Wagener's column includes scans (and discussions) of the two serif, three sans serif and one monospaced fonts—and I have to say they look great. While the jury will be out until we can get a chance to see copy set in the new faces, any improvement in on-screen readability is very welcome.

Ghost Town

2005-03-15T10:34:00.000-08:00

Tumbleweeds roll down the avenues, dust devils swirl. Blogs remain quiet; the feeds are silent. There's nary a sound in UXCentric City except the creak of a sign as it swings back and forth above the empty saloon.

Where is everyone? At SXSW and ETech, it seems.

By the way, the picture above is part of Bodie, a remarkable California state park that preserves a once-booming town in a state of arrested decay. It's south of Bridgeport, off of Highway 395. Well worth a visit.

Cookie Monsters?

2005-03-14T11:56:00.000-08:00

I'd like to know a lot more about JupiterResearch's March 9 report that claims:

Ten percent of Web users delete cookies daily.

17 percent delete them weekly.

And 12 percent delete them monthly.

Jupiter Research is trying to tell me that nearly 40 percent of users delete cookies monthly? Puh-leeze.

Seth Godin is already all over this, in an aptly-titled post, File under: stats that cannot be true. Asks Mr. Godin:

This is the same population that can't get rid of pop ups, repeatedly falls for phishing of their Paypal and eBay accounts, still uses Internet Explorer, buys stuff from spammers, doesn't know what RSS is and sends me notes every day that say, "what's a blog?"

Exactly. So what could explain these inexplicable findings?

My first thought was that maybe the results reflected corporate practices—that IT departments routinely sweep cookies off client systems on a regular basis. But the Jupiter findings came from a survey of 2,337 individual respondents who claimed they deleted cookies regularly.

Then I remembered that survey respondents can be notorious for answering questions not based upon actual behavior but upon what they think they should be doing. How many servings of vegetables do you eat daily? How many times a week do you exercise? How often do you go to church? Maybe that's what's going on here. People think they should be deleting cookies regularly, are embarrassed that they're not, so they report that they do. This idea gets credence from Erik Petersen, JupiterResearch's lead analyst for the report:

"For some reason, consumers have identified cookies incorrectly as spyware," [Petersen] added. "Consumers don't understand what cookies do."

I think this is closer to the truth. Run Spybot Search and Destroy or Ad-Aware SE. Both report "tracking cookies" as possible threats. Naive users could be easily misled into thinking that all cookies are evil and should be deleted. Maybe they even think that using anti-spyware tools to remove tracking cookies removes all cookies. All the talk about Internet scams could also unwittingly lead some to fear anything they don't understand. Who knows?

There are some users who routinely delete cookies or reject them altogether. But if JupiterResearch examined the hard drives of those 40 percent who claim to delete cookies at least monthly, I'm sure they'd find the number significantly lower.

Friday Favorite: UIE Articles

2005-03-11T16:20:00.000-08:00

Ya gotta love Jared Spool and the team at User Interface Engineering (UIE) for their consistently interesting, occasionally provocative, always practical articles on all things UX.

Take a gander at the articles index, listed by date and by topic. There are the "numbered" items (examples: Seven Common Usability Testing Mistakes; Six Steps to Ensure a Successful Usability Test). There are interviews (examples: Rolf Molich; Ginny Redish). Topics range from branding, personas and search to user behavior and usability testing.

Of course, UIE isn't offering all this good stuff for purely intrinsic reasons. There's the marketing motive too (and I can't deny that's one reason behind UXCentric!). But the sales pitches—if any—are subtle and counter-balanced by good information. And it's easy to stay up to date by e-mail or RSS.

No matter how it's delivered, I'm always glad to see what's on UIE's mind.

The UX of Trader Joe's

2005-03-11T10:44:00.000-08:00

For those of you unfortunate enough to lack a nearby Trader Joe's, my condolences. Follow along as best you can.

Trader Joe's is a unique grocery store. Started back in the 1960s with an emphasis on cheese, nuts and inexpensive wine, TJ's is now in 19 states, offering more than 2000 food products. In recent years, it has enjoyed a significant expansion and boasts more than 200 stores. Here in SoCal, it has something of a cult following that includes the high and mighty (Hollywood stars and politicians) and most everyone else.

What is Trader Joe's secret? Interesting, delicious and generally-natural products at reasonable prices certainly play a role. Yet I think it is the Trader Joe's experience that is the heart of its success—an experience that suggests lessons for Web UX. A few observations from my semi-weekly visit yesterday:

There are always new discoveries at Trader Joe's. Despite a popular mailed circular (more on that in a minute), you never know what new items you'll find on the shelves. While there are a few dash-in-and-out shoppers, most linger in the aisles, scanning the shelves for newly-introduced treats. TJ's knows that people love the thrill of discovery and so they maximize the possibilities.

Shoppers have instant access to TJ's people.They're always on the sales floor. There's usually a person (the "Helmsperson") solely dedicated to answering questions—but you can ask anyone anywhere for help. They'll drop everything and take you directly to what you're looking for, chatting all the way. (There are no curt "Aisle four" answers at Trader Joe's.) Checkers always ask if you found what you needed—and routinely encourage shoppers to add items at the last second. Managers (they're called "Captains" and "First Mates") aren't hidden away in an office; they're in an open booth that's the nerve center of the store. It's all about the personal touch at TJ's.

Trader Joe's has mastered the skill of great communication. This is part of its mission: "to bring our customers the best food and beverage values and the information to make informed buying decisions."

It begins with the monthly postal circular, The Fearless Flyer. Originally written by (now-retired) Joe himself, the Flyer is a folksy, even hokey, newsletter chockfull of information about products old and new. It still looks like it did 20 years ago—a hastily-assembled pastiche with bold hand-drawn circles and the ubiquitous Victorian illustrations enhanced with quippy speech balloons. (This carries over on the TJ's Web site.) Products get a paragraph or two explaining their origins, ingredients and suggested uses.

This continues in the store with the famous blackboards—ornately done in colored chalks—that describe featured products. Most stores have small kitchens where chefs whip up samples and give away recipes. Every "Crew Member" is ready to tell you stories about new products, personal favorites and serving ideas. Indeed, TJ's describes itself as a "store of stories." How's that for understanding the importance of narrative?

Then there's the Trader Joe's style. It's down-home and quirky. Employees wear Hawaiian shirts and T-shirts. Many (most?) are offbeat sorts and always personable. Each store employs a "sign artist" who creates shelf tags and those great blackboards. TJ's pokes fun at itself and enjoys a good pun. Old-fashioned neighborhood contests are common—best holiday pet photo, coloring contests for kids, treasure hunts in the store. In short, Trader Joe's is unpretentious and welcoming.

I won't belabor the point that TJ's success comes from understanding the needs and wishes of its shoppers—and using that knowledge to profoundly shape a UXCentric experience. It's something many Web sites need to learn.

Boost Your Brain

2005-03-10T11:18:00.000-08:00

I just tried out Brainboost, which bills itself as an "answer engine" rather than a search engine. The site explains,

What that means is that Brainboost actually finds answers to your questions posed in plain English as opposed to directing you to pages that simply mention the questions. Brainboost, Using the AnswerRank^TMsystem, intelligently reads hundreds of web pages derived from search results and extracts just the short and concise answer to your question, saving you time.

Skeptical as I am about these things, I posed my usual test question, "Who is Thaddeus Lowe?" (Lowe was a 19th century American inventor and entrepreneur.) In just a few seconds, Brainboost listed a dozen answers/sites, each with the URL, link and excerpt. A "Read More" link opens an inline scrollable window of the corresponding site for a quick look at the answer in context. "Regular Search Results" (i.e., a list of links) appear at the bottom of the page

Brainboost answered other questions ("What is the melting point of iron?") with similar aplomb, although it stumbled when I asked it convert a Celsius temperature to Fahrenheit. And it seems to do best with cut-and-dried factual information—the kind typically found in an encyclopedia or almanac. For example, when I asked "What is user experience?" Brainboost failed to provide a definition, instead offering a disappointing list of numerous text excerpts from books and sites no more useful than typical search results. (To be fair, Google also failed with a "define:user experience" query.)

Even so, with its quick responses to natural language queries, Brainboost is a pleasant step in the direction of search engines that are more UXCentric.

Via ResearchBuzz

UXCentricity: A Matter of Life and Death

2005-03-09T10:49:00.000-08:00

In many arenas, UXCentricity—while essential—is not an absolute requirement. Although not ideal, many sites and applications can (and do) skate by with user-centered design that ranges from minimal to good.

That just ain't true for medical systems, where poor UXCentricity can result in injury or death. Today's New York Times reports on research that questions whether information technology is ready to transform healthcare. (Registration required; read it before it disappears into the maw of the pay archive.) I added italics for emphasis.

One paper, based on a lengthy study at a large teaching hospital, found 22 ways that a computer system for physicians could increase the risk of medication errors. Most of these problems, the authors said, were created by poorly designed software that too often ignored how doctors and nurses actually work in a hospital setting.

The likelihood of errors was increased, the paper stated, because information on patients' medications was scattered in different places in the computer system. To find a single patient's medications, the researchers found, a doctor might have to browse through up to 20 screens of information.

Among the potential causes of errors they listed were patient names' being grouped together confusingly in tiny print, drug dosages that seem arbitrary and computer crashes.

"These systems force people to wrap themselves around the technology like a pretzel instead of making sure the technology is responsive to the people doing the work," said Ross J. Koppel, the principal author of the medical journal's article on the weaknesses of computerized systems for ordering drugs and tests... "These computer systems hold great promise, but they also introduce a stunning number of faults."

Even proponents of increased IT in medicine admitted that the studies raised good points, while contending that newer systems were more "in tune with the work."

To me, this suggests that the first developers to produce UXCentric medical systems specifically designed around the ways doctors and nurses actually work could dominate the market—and save lives in the process.

Users Kicking Ass

2005-03-08T17:43:00.000-08:00

Kathy Sierra at Creating Passionate Users hits the nail on the head with her brilliant post, Can you have too much ease-of-use? Kathy's answer—and I wholly agree—is yes, indeed, you can make things too easy. People find value in things that provide continuous challenge. Accomplishment and constant growth is the root of passion. Kathy sums it up like this:

[G]ive your users an "I kick ass" experience, and you'll greatly increase the chances that they'll become passionate.

Users kicking ass. I love it! A child jumping and dancing around the room after conquering a once-insurmountable challenge on your site's game. A technophobic adult basking in the success of posting the family's vacation photos online for the first time. An administrative assistant successfully arranging the boss' intricate travel plans at the last minute. They all kick ass. They all feel alive. They will all visit your site again. Enthusiastically.

It's more than just elation. We're hard-wired for continuous challenge. It's in our DNA. It accounts for our survival as a species. It may very well be our greatest asset but is easily forgotten in the cushy life of the developed world. No wonder Xtreme sports are the rage; we've got to go to the edges to satisfy our innate need for challenge.

Overcoming continuous challenge is the human condition. It's rooted in our souls and spirits. Look at the great myths and stories of our world. Joseph Campbell demonstrates that they take a similar form—the Hero's Journey, a constant struggle against ever-greater adversity that results in personal transformation. Or take George Leonard's invaluable Mastery: The Keys to Success and Long-Term Fullfillment with its emphasis on journey, perseverance, surrender and transformation.

Usability, a readily-grasped information architecture, intuitive interaction design, attractive visual design—these are prerequisites to adequate user experiences, but on their own will never produce the passion arising from a great UX. Taken to an extreme, they can even diminish or destroy the experiences users seek.

We do our users (and ourselves) a disservice when we assume that a powerful UX is the result of technique, of the application of certain principles and practices. That's where we are today. Check out Amazon's listing of books on Web usability and Web user experience. Nearly 50 books (many of them outstanding), yet not one explores the inner world of UX—the psychological and spiritual, the depths of the heart where passion is born, where experience is fully felt.

We're still in the infancy of Web UX. Does that get your passion burning?

Googlecentric, not UXCentric

2005-03-07T20:45:00.000-08:00

In his (righteously thumbs-down) review of the Google toolbar's Autolink, Doc Searls writes,

Google's consumers pay nothing. Google consumers are very much, in this respect, like commercial broadcasting's consumers: powerless. They can't say "I'll take my business elsewhere," because they have no business to take.

Usage, maybe. But not business.

Google is, no doubt, completely revolutionizing the advertising business. But they have a lot of work to do on the other side of the consumer/customer split. They need to start treating consumers as customers. They need to see that markets are not just conversations, but relationships as well.

Google began as a "power to the people," UXCentric tool. But as its financial juggernaut gains speed, Google seems to be losing its focus a bit. Let's hope it's just a momentary aberration.

Serendipity and Grace

2005-03-07T20:08:00.000-08:00

Chris Locke—one of the Cluetrainers, the Gonzo Marketer, RageBoy and, not least of all, Chief Blogging Officer—is doing some amazing writing lately.

Consider this quote from his recent search, serendipity and bricolage:

So there's search. But there are various kinds of search, and some of these "kinds" are more unalike than they are similar. That's part of the challenge of searching. Figuring out what you're looking for, and whether the things you turn up are really things-of-a-kind. Or not. But you can't know until you find them, and you wouldn't be searching if you already knew where they were. Am I right, Dude? This is where serendipity comes into it. The happy accident, the stochastic glitch, the cybernetic analog of grace. That changes your direction. Sometimes changes your life. But let's not get too heavy too soon. We're talking about search.

Oh man, "the cybernetic analog of grace!" The CBO can really turn a phrase—and he's dead right on. It's exactly what I asked earlier about doing a Leonardo. By striving for the findable and usable Web are we squeezing the serendipity, the accident, the grace right out of the Internet?

While reflecting on the above, I began Locke's next post, how hypertext works, when a familiar name appeared: David E. Rogers. Whoa, I thought, struck by the serendipity of the CBO himself quoting me.

So what's the big deal? I'll tell you. I might not be writing this were it not for the "cybernetic analog of grace" that led me to the original Webbed Cluetrain Manifesto, a work that so fired my imagination that it launched me into UXCentrism. Would a purely findable and usable Web have done the same? I think not.

Swiss Army Knife Searching

2005-03-07T11:28:00.000-08:00

Take a look at Nextaris, a new free (and subscription) tool that bills itself as "an all- in-one set of web-based tools for searching the Web, capturing content, saving/sharing files, publishing blogs, messaging and networking." Look here for more details.

At first glance, I was reminded a bit of Copernic Agent's ability to save searches in folders, but Nextaris buffs this up with a Web interface and the addition of buzzy tools like blogs, file- and photo-sharing. What is sadly lacking is the ability to tag Web pages and photos (although you can add comments). Even so, Nextaris is an interesting concept.

Via ResourceShelf.

Branding and UXCentricity

2005-03-07T11:01:00.000-08:00

Although branding was officially declared dead some time ago (and by some folks I respect), I have to disagree.

Sort of.

If by "branding" you mean traditional, top-down, manipulative, disrespectful attempts to pound a perception of a company into the minds and hearts of "consumers," I wholly agree. The Brand is Dead. And none too soon.

Traditional branding is well-named. You chase down and lasso a baby cow and yank it off its feet with an exuberant Yee-haw! You drag it—squawling for its mother—to a firepit where irons are heating to red-hot extremes. While a couple of cowpoke colleagues hold the calf down, you forcefully apply an iron to its hide, blinking your eyes through the resulting smoke, aromatic of burned flesh. Once you're certain the calf is scarred for life, you restore its freedom.

That's broadcast branding. And if it's not dead yet, it's well on its way. The cattle have rebelled—not under a cry of "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" but "Markets are conversations."

Listen up, traditional branders. We end-users can no longer be herded like cattle by the cowboys of commercials and print ads. Commercial sponsorship is just a bleached skull in the desert. We don't notice fancy logos and clever corporate names any more than cows notice the glories of the Painted Desert. Pay your millions to the agencies and broadcasters, but know (and despair) that we see through you. You have no clothes.

If you want our hearts, our minds, our loyalties, our enthusiasm, our dollars, you'd better treat us well in every encounter we have with you. Every one. No exceptions. Slack off for a moment and we're gone. We call the shots now. It's all about us.

We've inaugurated a UXCentric world, one based on the totality of our interactions with and responses to your business, product or service in any and every medium.

If branding is to survive in this new world, it has to become UXCentric. It has to begin and end from the perspective of end-users—not the fertile minds of the creative staff in an ivory tower. It must at least address the needs and wants of users—not just corporate goals for profitability and growth. And (the biggest challenge of all) it requires satisfying the intangible and even unconscious goals and aspirations of end-users.

I don't think traditional marketers are up to the task. But UXCentrists are.

Friday Favorite: ResourceShelf

2005-03-04T20:40:00.000-08:00

I'm of the opinion that you can never have enough information about your users. Research to your best ability, but there's always more to discover—and much of it from unexpected sources.

Like ResourceShelf, a blog compiled and edited by Gary Price, a librarian, information research consultant, and writer based in suburban Washington D.C.

Each day, Gary posts links to outstanding online information in such categories as "Resources, Reports, Tools, Lists and Full Text Documents," "Professional Reading Shelf" (mainly of interest to librarians) and "Web Search Briefs." You never know what kind of resource Gary will find and post—and that's part of the magic of ResourceShelf. Selected UXCentric links from the last week include:

The New York Times' guidelines for "Ethical Journalism" (a PDF). Food for thought if you're a journalistic blogger.

A report on the credibility of major travel sites (another PDF).

BlogBib, an annotated bibliography on Weblogs and blogging compiled by a librarian.

report on Internet access in U.S. public schools

A collection of facts about women, prepared by the U.S. Census.

A free ebook by EDUCAUSE on educating the "Net Generation."

And that's just from this week! You can sign up for a weekly newsletter, but grab the feed instead for a daily fix.

The Question and Ducklings

2005-03-04T10:27:00.000-08:00

Ah, "The Question." You UXCentrics know which one I mean. You're in a meeting with a Client talking about great UX and UCD and enthusiasm rises. And someone asks, "Could you give us a list of sites with great user experience?"

I don't like The Question. Not because there aren't any outstanding sites to mention, but because it can suck the creativity out of a team. Great examples of UXCentricity are not a panacea to what's ailing a design team. They're not even a good source for great ideas. The best ideas come from within—from a project team obsessed with their own users. Other sites are for other users. Why look there for answers?

The Question has a subtle undercurrent: If a site is successful (say an Amazon or Yahoo!), it's often assumed that the UI and UX is superb. I beg to differ. I'm a big Amazon customer and I'm reasonably pleased with SBC Yahoo!—but I don't see these as paragons of UXCentricity. Those sites are successful for other reasons than UX.

Which leads to another corollary of The Question: "If people are used to Amazon, Yahoo! and so on, shouldn't we adopt a similar UI and UX?" This raises the spectre of emerging de facto standards—"best" practices created not by interaction designers consumed with meeting the needs of their site's audience, but by popularity. This—in the immortal words of a wise end-user I once met—expects tool users to be tool makers. Choosing to design a site a certain way because users are "used" to it elsewhere is abrogating your responsibilities as a designer, your responsibilities to your specific audience. And it slams the door in the face of potentially groundbreaking innovation.

I was reminded of this today when reading Peter Seebach's latest Cranky User column at IBM developerWorks where he discusses the baby duck syndrome—"what happens when users judge new and upcoming systems by comparing them with the first system they learned. This means that users generally prefer systems similar to those they learned on and dislike unfamiliar systems." A choice quote:

This leaves vendors with a serious problem. If you preserve interface compatibility for a long time, users are comfortable, but you end up stuck with an interface which may not be quite as eye-catching as you'd like. (The question of actual usability, it seems, has been completely ignored by the major players in the field for some years.) On the other hand, if you change it significantly, you give all your users a chance to stop and think whether, now that they have to learn how to use the computer all over again, they'd rather learn to use yours or someone else's.

Yes, baby ducks must follow their mommy ducks in order to survive. But there comes a time in every duck's (and user's) life when it's time to grow up and discover the wonderful delights of the big world around them.

In No Particular Order

2005-03-03T22:30:00.000-08:00

Sheesh. I'm out of the office for a few days and it takes hours to catch up with doings in the UXCentricverse. Remember the days when it was difficult to find much of anything on the subject?

I could post eloquent on each of these, but in the interest of time, we'll just bullet-list them:

Luke Wroblewski offers a fine list of UX diagrams. Some (JJG) you've seen; others you haven't. Collect them all!

Rashmi Sinha discusses "tag sorting"— the use of Flickr and del.ico.us tags as a method of freelisting. This got me thinking: How else can tags provide insight into internal user taxonomies?

D. Keith Robinson discusses ways to uncomplicate the Web. How long will we keep repeating the same guidelines before we actually pay attention?

Do you feel a draft? Does the UXCentric campus feel a bit empty? That's because everyone has gone to the IA Summit in Montreal.

Meanwhile, I had a great time doing some guerilla usability consulting with Karon Weber (now on her own, but toting cool hashmarks from Xerox PARC and Pixar) for a company with a very WOW! product. It was something of a daylong sprint and UXCentric to the extreme. Sweet.

A Quiet Week

2005-02-28T08:54:00.000-08:00

I'll be out of the office for much of this week, so posting may be lighter than usual.

From Trees to Leaves

2005-02-26T12:13:00.000-08:00

David Weinberger just posted the introduction to his article for Release 1.0 on taxonomies and tags—and it's must reading if you have any interest at all in the topic. As always, David's writing communicates rich ideas in beautifully clear language. Sadly, it's $80 for the complete article and issue. Some of us will have to wait for David's book on the subject.

Doing the Leonardo

2005-02-25T22:31:00.000-08:00

A week or so ago, I offered a pair of posts (one and two) about an article by Milton Glaser that explored Leonardo da Vinci's use of ambiguity in his The Last Supper. Glaser explains that "DaVinci clearly believed that ambiguity was a way of arriving at the truth. As a result, the painting moves us in a deeper and more profound way than any direct statement."

It led me to this thought: As interaction and visual designers, as information architects and engineers, can we "do a Leonardo?"

That is, can we use the brain's fascination with ambiguity to improve our users' experience, better facilitate their accomplishment of goals and (at the same time) interest them a bit in other services we offer?

I was thinking about this on my bike ride today and the word "misdirect" popped into mind—the genesis of this post.

The premier venue for all things magical in Los Angeles (and perhaps the world) is the famed Magic Castle. My hands-down favorite theater there is "The Close-Up Gallery." There, you sit practically on the magician's lap while he or she performs the impossible before your wondering eyes.

Now, I know the magician isn't really doing something "impossible." But he or she is employing some powerful techniques that lead us to perceive that the impossible and wondrous is being done. Misdirection is perhaps the most important. Legendary magician Jean Hugard wrote, "The principle of misdirection plays such an important role in magic that one might say that Magic is misdirection and misdirection is Magic" (found here). And what's really interesting to me is that we love being misdirected. It's essential to the entire experience.

What if we are unintentionally removing some of the magic of the Web by our efforts to make everything easy to find and use? What if Leonardo is right—that ambiguity is necessary to fully engage us in an experience? Peter Morville writes, "Ambient findability describes a world in which we can find anyone or anything from anywhere at anytime." That doesn't sound very magical to me. Are we on an inexorable march to make everything on the Web plodding and pedantic?

Maybe it's time to start thinking about misdirecting our end-users once in awhile—when it's appropriate, when it will add to their experiences, even enhance their purposes for visiting a site.

Let's take an example. I'm taking a business trip next week and need to book a hotel. I could approach it in one of two ways:

I could immediately go to the Web site of a hotel chain I trust, find a property in the desired area and make my reservation. Nothing wrong with that. Fast, easy, direct, findable. And workaday. No magic at all.

Or I could go to Yahoo! Maps, call up a map of the area, display the hotels, explore the options and make my choice. Note that I still found what I'm looking for—but I have permitted the possibility of misdirection and serendipity into the finding experience. And I enjoy it more, too.

Admittedly, this is oversimplified. Some might say I'm just describing the difference between searching (case 1) and browsing (case 2). But if people wanted a Web that is wholly "findable," why hasn't search taken over cyberspace? My answer: It lacks magic.

I'm not saying we should mislead our users. No sirree. But I am saying that there are definite opportunities to build in some misdirection (or other perceptual techniques) that engage our users more fully than a cut-and-dried taxonomy, IA or modified-L navigation scheme. And engagement is the Magna Carta of UXCentricity.

Using misdirection and other techniques to improve UX is going to be a challenge. Heck, thus far we're having difficulty simply making things findable! But if we're serious about UXCentricity, we're going to have to take some unorthodox paths—into brain science, archetypes, myth, narrative psychology, detective fiction and even magic. Anyone ready for the journey?

UXCentric TV?

2005-02-25T10:43:00.000-08:00

Well, let's just say we have a long way to go before that happens.

Even so, there are some bright spots on the horizon, as the Los Angeles Times (registration required, BugMeNot login here) reports in today's front page "Column One," The Plot Thickens Online. Read it now before it drops behind the paywall.

Using Crossing Jordan's fictional Nigel's Blog as his launching point, reporter Chris Gaither surveys Hollywood's increased use of the Web to augment broadcasts:

[P]roducers of scripted prime-time dramas have joined the trend, bringing some interactivity to a historically one-way medium. They are creating web logs, producing Internet-only video segments that introduce new story lines and releasing footage of actors and producers discussing the shows.

Producers aren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts or because of their UXCentric passions. It's all about promotion, as Lisa Gregorian, senior vice president of television creative services at Warner Bros. freely admits: "Our goal was to find new and innovative ways to promote our content that was airing on the network." Indeed.

There's a tiny breeze of hope, however. "Watching the show is very passive," says Kira Ame, Crossing Jordan's executive story editor. "With the website, they're able to navigate through a case. It's a more in-depth way of participating with the mysteries." Aha! Could Hollywood be discovering interactivity?

While I found the writing on Nigel's Blog to be overwrought and lacking voice, its other features are remarkably well done. In an effort to solve a crime, users have access to police reports, autopsy results and much more. There's a lot of work behind Nigel's Blog and it's work that engages viewer-users. That's a step in the UXCentric direction.

Friday Favorite: HFI's UI Design Newsletter

2005-02-25T10:12:00.000-08:00

Over the years, I've watched my bookmarks to UXCentric resources on the Web grow from a trickle to a roaring flood. Only a few reach back into the last century—Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, for one. Another is today's Friday Favorite, the UI Design Update newsletter from Human Factors International.

Month in and month out since 1998, UI Design Update has offered research-based reports on practical issues that affect UXCentricity. Recent topics include:

Searching vs. browsing.

Observer effects in usability testing.

Breadcrumb navigation.

Appropriate use of focus groups and usability testing.

What I appreciate most about UI Design Update is that each article includes a list of references on the topic. Indeed, their annual Research Reviews does nothing but summarize and list key research in a number of UXCentric topics.

I'm always guarded when I read company-sponsored resources lest I be sucked into a white paper marketing vortex. HFI's UI Design Newsletter avoids the trap of self-promotion while providing to-the-point insights into recent research. That's why it's this week's Friday Favorite.

Questions about Questionnaires?

2005-02-23T11:25:00.000-08:00

Although I routinely use questionnaires during the User Analysis phase of my projects, I carefully explain to my Clients that the results have (at best) limited validity and reliability because I am not a research specialist. If I had my druthers (and budget!) I'd hire a trained researcher to create and administer surveys and questionnaires, but that's almost always a luxury—so I keep my amateur versions as simple as possible, loading my reports with caveats.

For those curious about the need for skillfully-crafted questionnaires, I'll sometimes refer them to Jurek Kirakowski's Questionnaires in Usability Engineering: A List of Frequently Asked Questions. It's a great introduction to the science of "questionneering" and clearly explains the pitfalls of poorly-designed instruments.

Color Contrast Analyzer

2005-02-23T10:42:00.000-08:00

Ever wished that you had an easy way to explain to designers that there was insufficient contrast between type and background colors? Now there is!

I just tried out the Colour Contrast Analyser from the National Information Library Service's Accessible Information Solutions in Australia (hence the Queen's spelling)—and I'm in love. This is a small, handy, easy-to-use program that instantly checks "foreground & background colour combinations to determine if they provide good colour visibility" based upon W3C standards. You can enter colors by hex number or (my favorite) extract them directly using a magnified view. There's no adware, malware or installation program; just unzip into the desired folder and run the 200kb exe.

Via Web Design References.

Players and Privacy

2005-02-23T09:57:00.000-08:00

Do people worry about privacy when using their MP3 players? According to Larry Ponemon of the Ponemon Institute, 78 percent do not—but that trust can be quickly eroded.

In Darwin's latest issue, Dr. Larry Ponemon reports that only 44 percent of respondents to a recent survey "believed that the MP3 player or its manufacturer collected information about the user's music selections, titles and preferences." Nearly two out of three are unsure or don't believe that their MP3 player or its manufacturer shares personal information with third parties.

And if that sense of privacy is violated,

[M]ost respondents said their trust and confidence in the MP3 player would be diminished if they learned that third-party sharing of their information took place without disclosure and their permission. About 53 percent of subjects believe that users of MP3-related information should obtain explicit permission before acquiring personal data when downloading songs into the device.

So what do you know about your MP3 player? Is it sharing information about your music choices with others without your knowledge? Exactly what kinds of information? Where would you go to find out? Would you know how to opt out of third-party sharing of information? How easily you can find the answers is a measure of your player's and music providers' UXCentricity.

The Business-Savvy UXCentrist

2005-02-22T13:09:00.000-08:00

In the January issue of STC's Intercom magazine, Chauncey Wilson gazes into his crystal ball (PDF ahead!) and concludes that:

...in the next decade I believe that practitioners will need to expand their repertoire of knowledge and skills beyond traditional usability and design activities and move from tactical to strategic thinking.

He then describes six trends that will challenge UX practitioners in the future. From my perspective, he's beautifully on target. I particularly agree that "Business skills and savvy will become more important criteria in hiring usability and user experience practitioners."

My grasp of business fundamentals from marketing to strategic planning (honed while managing retail stores during the early days of my career) has been a key distinctive of my UX practice. Clients appreciate my ability to talk turkey with stakeholders from various disciplines and our projects have benefitted. UXCentrists realize that Client stakeholders are our "First Users;" their perspectives, needs and wishes for a site must be understood along with those of end users. Brushing up on your business skills can help you build bridges across these oft-divergent audiences.

Via UI Designer.

Improving E-Store Checkout

2005-02-22T11:20:00.000-08:00

E-Commerce Times reports today that single-page checkouts may significantly reduce shopping cart abandonment at e-stores. The gist:

During the latest year-end holiday season, both TJMaxx.com and HomeGoods.com tested a checkout system in which customers used a single page for all shipping and billing information. Fifty percent more customers completed the checkout process than had finished the multipage process.

TJMaxx.com is still using the system, pictured in the screen capture above and created by Molecular using Macromedia's Flex. When shoppers with a fast connection view their cart or click the checkout button, the system loads a small rich application. The four-step checkout (Shipping, Billing, Payment, Review) is completed on this page, with each step expanding from the navigable bars in the Checkout box.

On my broadband connection, the app loaded quickly and operated smoothly. It's nicely done—as long shoppers don't click the browser's Back button! At the first click, there seems to be no response. At the second, it's the dreaded "The page cannot be displayed" message. Ouch! Since the Back button (at least anecdotally) is one of the most frequently used navigation methods, this is a serious flaw. Even so, it's hard to argue with TJMaxx's increased checkout completion rate and certainly worth further exploration.

Assessing Your Blogging Ethics

2005-02-22T10:54:00.000-08:00

One of the tenets of UXCentricity is integrity—being completely straightforward in all interactions with end-users. Since it covers so much of what we do as individuals and companies in the public and private spheres, integrity may be one of the biggest challenges of UXCentricity. It's certainly something I'd like to explore in future posts.

Since this blog is all about UXCentricity, I strive to maintain integrity in what appears here. I do my best to ensure that information is accurate, that I clearly differentiate my factual and opining voices and that I respect the value and viewpoints of readers. And I just participated in a survey that helped me assess how well I'm doing.

As part of their honors thesis, Andy Koh and a number of undergrad classmates at the School of Communications and Information, Nanyang Technological University (Singapore) are conducting a survey on blogging and ethics. It took me about 15 minutes to complete.

What I found most valuable was the light it shed on my own practices here at UXCentric and the way it helped me assess my blogging ethics. If you're a blogger, I think you'll enjoy the exercise. You can start right here. Results will be posted at the Singapore Internet Research Centre (which looks pretty interesting itself).

Theories of Experience

2005-02-21T12:40:00.000-08:00

My brain has been churning away on my contribution to Jon Strande's 100 Bloggers book project. (I'm still flattered as hell at being included.) The book is a great idea. As Jon puts it, the purpose "is to push blogging further into the mainstream - to give people a taste of what blogging is all about and extend an offer for them to join us. Inclusion. Community. Participation." What I think is really cool was the invitation process. Twenty-five bloggers began; each invited another blogger, who invited another, who invited another—mimicking the linkages that unite the blogosphere.

But I digress. Since I don't have to write about blogging, I'm exploring the idea of UXCentricity. What is user experience and why is it so important? What is it about UX that makes me (and others) UXCentric—eccentrically orienting our vocations and careers around it? Why would I or anyone blog about UXCentricity?

In the process, I've been trolling the Web for UXCentric people and ideas. Here's one you might like: Jodi Forlizzi offers a collection of summarized theories on experience in an effort to help designers understand what it's all about. She also offers her own framework and links to resources. It's a great place to get your UXCentric neurons sparking!

UXCentric Quotes

2005-02-21T10:10:00.000-08:00

In cyberspace, there is no one to hear the screams of the lost and bewildered.

Rodger Hudson of Web Usability in an excellent overview of accessibility issues in site navigation. Pass it on to your site engineers.

The Dark Side of UX

2005-02-18T12:50:00.000-08:00

I'm talking about EULAs—those End User License Agreements, dense in type and legal mumbo-jumbo that you have to agree with to use the software you just bought.

Our heroes at the Electronic Frontier Foundation just released a very helpful and user-friendly User's Guide to EULAs ideal for a UXCentrist's bag of tricks.

It begins with this chilling pronouncement:

These days, EULAs are ubiquitous in software and consumer electronics -- millions of people are clicking buttons that purport to bind them to agreements that they never read and that often run contrary to federal and state laws. These dubious "contracts" are, in theory, one-on-one agreements between manufacturers and each of their customers. Yet because almost every computer user in the world has been subjected to the same take-it-or-leave-it terms at one time or another, EULAs are more like legal mandates than consumer choices. They are, in effect, changing laws without going through any kind of legislative process. And the results are dangerous for consumers and innovators alike.

To help hapless users like us, the EFF examines and explains six common terms in EULAs, suggests ways to fight the most egregious terms, discusses TOS (Terms of Service Agreements, the likewise-evil cousin of EULAs) and provides a list of resources for more information. Check it out.

Friday Favorite: SURL Usability News

2005-02-18T12:04:00.000-08:00

Today's Friday Favorite is a timely one since its most recent articles are currently featured in a number of Weblogs. It's Usability News, the newsletter of the Software Usability Research Laboratory (SURL) of Wichita State University. Each issue highlights some of SURL's recent research findings and it's always excellent. Dr. Barbara S. Chaparro gets a hearty tip of the UXCentric cap for pulling it all together for us.

The only downside is that the newsletter is published just twice yearly, so sign up for the mailing list for a reminder. Also check out Dr. Michael Bernard's somewhat hidden gem, Criteria for optimal web design, for some great research summaries.

Tastes Great! Less Filling!

2005-02-18T11:40:00.000-08:00

A splendid response from Peter Boersma to my IA Lite? post explores the issue far better than I did—and offers lots of links worth perusing. In particular, Peter's Big IA is now UX is spot-on.

Peter does a better job of defining IA Lite than I (who dodged the issue) when he writes: "IA Lite focusses on these shallow subjects, like navigation, labeling and layout." Put another way, you'll find IA Lite wherever IA intersects with other disciplines such as visual design, content creation, interaction design, etc. That, by the way, is the heart of Big IA is now UX. (Have I mentioned that you should read that?) Peter also suggests that IA Lite is akin to Jakob Nielsen's famous Guerilla Usability—and deftly adapts Nielsen's definition to suit IA.

In that spirit, let me say that I have nothing against IA Lite or Guerilla IA insofar as it stays within its bounds. I even teach IA Lite in my seminars, where my objective is to give non-IAs some simple tools so that they can do a little Guerilla IA when necessary. What would trouble me would be (1) attempts to equate IA Lite with IA in its fullness and (2) practitioners of IA Lite passing themselves off as "real" IAs. And because IAs themselves could be accused of practicing "Visual Design Lite" or "Guerilla Branding," I don't want to call the kettle black.

Finally, I thought of several books that offer guerilla training. Try these on for size (camoflauge patterns available upon request):

Guerilla IA: Information Architecture: Blueprints for the Web by Christina Wodtke.

Guerilla Usability Testing: Don't Make Me Think! by Steve Krug.

Guerilla Usability: Designing Web Usability : The Practice of Simplicity by Jakob Nielsen.

Guerilla Design: The Non-Designer's Design Book by Robin Williams.

Guerilla Copy Writing: Hot Text: Web Writing that Works by Jonathan Price and Lisa Price.

Each offers a great introduction to their disciplines but on their own would not qualify a reader as an IA, usability tester or Web writer.

More Music to My Ears!

2005-02-17T18:04:00.000-08:00

Quote:

The big story here is not another browser war (not that I have anything against one; as I said yesterday, what fun!), but rather the conversation that has finally started between people inside companies and people outside those companies. The net made this inevitable, as the cluetrain manifesto predicted in 1999. Did Doc Searls, David Weinberger and myself really believe it would ever happen? I can't speak for Doc or David, but I know I was skeptical.

Something has begun here that is hugely significant. It doesn't mean there won't be any pain, but -- pant-blow, pant-blow -- maybe we can get through it, one contraction at a time.

Chris Locke, commending Microsoftie Robert Scoble's congratulatory post to Firefox.

IA Lite?

2005-02-17T11:33:00.000-08:00

Hmmm... While I surely appreciate the sentiments behind Joshua Kaufman's Information Architecture as an Extension of Web Design at Digital Web Magazine, I think he oversimplifies the complexity of IA in an effort to win over designers.

First, Joshua is right when he addresses the "misunderstanding" that "information architecture and Web design are often considered mutually exclusive." I vividly remember the resistance of gifted designers and engineers to IA as it began to make its presence felt around the turn of the millennium. And who would blame them? Web design had been their baby—and then interlopers appeared with fancy talk of taxonomies, insisting on injecting wireframes into the design process.

But in Web years, that's a long time ago. Not only has IA since evolved significantly as a discipline, but most designers I work with welcome me onto project teams, recognizing that I relieve them of tasks they perceive as drudgery. Even so, there are some remaining holdouts who would find Joshua's article enlightening.

Where I differ from Joshua is here:

While it's true that everything in Information Architecture for the World Wide Web cannot be learned in a day, there are several information architecture techniques that Web designers can easily learn and apply to all of their projects.

If only it were so! Yes, designers can "easily learn" the concepts of IA, but the actual application of those concepts is a different matter altogether.

For example, Joshua summarizes card sorting like so:

After you know what content your site will contain, do a card sort with at least several potential users of the site. Afterwards, you'll have what information architects call a taxonomy, a hierarchical classification scheme. This taxonomy will prove extremely valuable when deciding on your navigation labels and the site maps for your site.

This is a misleading oversimplification of a complex tool; just refer to the IAwiki's entry on card sorting to see how.

Joshua makes a similar oversimplification about wireframes:

Before you start designing a layout in Photoshop, create a wireframe using software such as Visio or OmniGraffle. Youll find that it will help you to think more analytically about the content before deciding what color it should be.

The act of wireframing alone does not inherently assist in content organization and structure. Instead, wireframing is the culmination of extensive and even arduous research into users, the Client, heuristics, classification and much more. In my seminars on IA, I tell Clients that creating wireframes is the reward for doing the vital drudge work that precedes and informs them.

Again, I wholly appreciate Joshua's efforts to build bridges between IAs, designers and engineers. Our disciplines overlap greatly. We all share the same goal of building the best possible sites for our Clients, customers and end-users. But oversimplifying IA (or design or coding) does no one a favor—and could inadvertently deepen the few rifts that remain between practitioners.

Music to My Ears

2005-02-16T21:19:00.000-08:00

Quote for the evening:

I knew the net was going to do this someday. I could feel it in my creaky old bones ten years ago, maybe 20. One day, I thought, some giant company is going to make some major announcement -- or what it would like the world to believe is a major announcement -- but the carefully crafted if utterly empty rhetoric will be drowned out by the block party going on next door.

Chris Locke in Out Firefoxed at Chief Blogging Officer.

"User Experience" as "Client Experience"

2005-02-16T16:14:00.000-08:00

As an independent contractor, I'm acutely aware that I'm responsible for providing great experiences for my treasured Clients. It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that this is a big challenge.

It's made easier by articles like this like this one by Steve Friedl, a software and network security consultant. Here, in the tone of a trusted buddy talking over drinks, Steve presents a numbers of on-the-mark maxims and loads of common sense for contractors and consultants. If you're working on your own (or even thinking about it), this is a great read. And I also highly recommend Daniel Pink's Free Agent Nation: The Future of Working for Yourself.

Via Usability News.

The User as Hero

2005-02-16T10:57:00.000-08:00

There's a wonderful and important post by Kathy Sierra at Creating Passionate Users that you won't want to miss. In The User's Journey, Kathy asks, "What would happen if developers/marketers/teachers tried to help users experience a kind of a hero's journey, and offered a way to help them through each stage?"

The application of Joseph Campbell's groundbreaking work, The Hero With a Thousand Faces, to user experience is something that has intrigued me for years. It started when Chris Vogler, author of The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers (a popular introduction to Campbell's ideas), led a seminar for the creative staff at iXL Los Angeles. I ate it up, recognizing how these ideas could lead to superb and meaningful user experiences. I'm still working on the concept, but here's how I introduce the idea to my Clients:

Among those who research human psychology and communication are narrative theorists who assert that we make sense of our world by making up and sharing stories about it. These stories can be individual or can encompass families, communities, companies and nations.

The central idea is that we share stories that reflect our sense of who we are and that these stories actually affect who we become.

The growing recognition of the power of narrative has seeped into the Web design world which is recognizing that the real though subtle stories behind every Web site play a forceful role in the user's experience. Thus identifying the story behind the sites we build is an important part of defining its design.

A site narrative should not be taken literally. It is a backstory that shapes the site's visual design, copy design, information architecture, user interface and programming with an easily remembered parable loaded with metaphor and imagery. Further, a site narrative helps describe the desired user experience and feelings during and after a visit to the site.

I typically follow this with my idea of the narrative of the Client's site based upon Campbell's ideas. I suspect that there are a few snickers from some on the project team, but artists and (especially) content specialists are usually enthusiastic.

Kathy proposes some great stuff, so don't miss her post. And I highly recommend Chris Vogler's book for a good introduction to the power of narrative.

Eating Your Usability Vegetables

2005-02-15T16:17:00.000-08:00

Jared Spool discusses Seven Common Usability Testing Mistakes today. Good stuff—but don't expect anything earthshaking.

That's because—if you've done any reading on usability testing at all—you're already aware of what Jared says. I'm not dissing him; it's a great article. If I'm dissing anyone (and I'm including myself), it's those of us who commit those errors in our usability testing when, deep down inside, we know better.

In that way, Jared is like Mom reminding us to eat our vegetables or brush our teeth after every meal. We always knew she was right.

Ambiguity and Usability

2005-02-15T10:50:00.000-08:00

I've been thinking more about Milton Glaser's discussion of ambiguity in Da Vinci's The Last Supper and wondering what it tells us about user experience on the Web .

What particularly struck me is the idea that by adding ambiguity to his painting, da Vinci ignites our imaginations, appealing to our brains' desire to solve problems. In so doing, says Glaser, the painting affects us more deeply than it would with a more simplistic approach. It engages our brains in such a way that we actually see and experience more in and of it.

I recently ranted about an argument that some sites (particularly banking) have become so easy to use that people aren't paying attention to ads, promotions and other "monetizing" elements. In response, some are apparently proposing that sites be periodically redesigned expressly to trip up their customers' mad dash to get their work done. That's a bad idea, of course, and it's where the slope gets slippery. The next thing we'll hear is advice to build in bad usability.

My first response was to suggest that those poor, struggling financial sites ask their customers what they'd like—what would interest them, what solutions the sites could offer to make their lives easier. "Give them content, services and resources that are compelling!" I raved.

But Glaser's article has me thinking in another direction. Can we do a Leonardo? That is, can we use the brain's fascination with ambiguity to improve our users' experience, better facilitate their accomplishment of goals and (at the same time) interest them a bit in other services we offer?

This goes beyond ensuring that a site is "merely" usable (although that remains the bottom line). It would mean stretching the definition of usability. Is "usable" enough? Is it enough to make sites easy to use—or are we making them so easy that we lull people's brains to an idle state? Put another way, are easy-to-use sites less usable because they don't spark our brains into enough activity?

I'm using the interrogative because I don't know the answers. Maybe it's something that Kathy Sierra and those those brain-obsessed folks at Creating Passionate Users could explore for us.

Ambiguity and Truth in Design

2005-02-14T12:11:00.000-08:00

The second edition of Adobe's Proxy 'zine (caution: 4.6MB PDF) has a fascinating look at Leonardo's da Vinci's The Last Supper by Milton Glaser.

After noting the number of ambiguities in the masterpiece, Glaser asks:

Of course, for us the question is, why would the most lucid mind in human history introduce so much ambiguity in a work that intends to affect its viewers? Ambiguity, incidentally, is a military term that means to be attacked from two sides at once. The answer may have to do with the way we process information. The human brain is a problem-solving organ, a characteristic that probably is at the center of our dominance over other species. The brain frequently remains inert until a problem is presented to it. In the case of The Last Supper, the profound ambiguity it contains alerts and stimulates the brain into action. DaVinci clearly believed that ambiguity was a way of arriving at the truth. As a result, the painting moves us in a deeper and more profound way than any direct statement.

He then offers a number of current examples of the way design ambiguity can be employed to "create a puzzle that the audience can solve in a short time." And there's an accompanying video interview with Glaser.

Design is essential to UXCentricity. It's not just about UI or IA.