UXthoughts

Markus' posterous

(At Least) Two Sides to Every Story

Twitter is not only a constant source of information, but also a constant source of opinions. With the way Twitter handles dialogs, you may at some times receive only one point of view, e.g., a link to a piece about the benefits of wireframing, but you may miss out on the other side of the story, in case it is contributed by people who you are not following.

It can often be valuable to reflect on both sides of a story, regardless of which side of the fence you are standing on. Therefore, I collected three examples from the field of UX design, which each one including two points of view that I conveniently subsumed under a catchy (i.e. simplified) heading and classified as “pro” or “con”, respectively. The individual sources are more nuanced, of course, but the headings and pro/con-distinction provide some starting point.

If you stumble across any more “UX design pro/con” stuff, let me know.

"Wireframing is a good thing"

Pro: http://sixrevisions.com/user-interface/wireframing-benefits/

Con: http://www.attackofdesign.com/why-wireframes-can-hurt-your-project/

"UX designers should be jacks of all trades"

Pro: http://www.uxforthemasses.com/what-makes-good-ux-designer/

Con: http://www.elisabethhubert.com/?p=1229

"UX and marketing go along well"

Pro: http://uxmag.com/strategy/a-designer-and-a-marketer-walk-into-a-bar

Con: http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2010/11/18/the-pernicious-effects-of-adverti...

 

 

There is no particular mystery in UX Design...

"There is no particular mystery in animation.., it's really very simple, and like anything that is simple, it is about the hardest thing in the world to do."

If you replace "animation" with "UX design" in this quote from Bill Tytla, there is still some truth to the statement.

There is no "secret knowledge" regarding good UX design to be acquired from hidden sources - there is a multitude of books, websites etc. devoted to the topic. Yet, knowledge alone is not sufficient: talent, experience and perseverance are amongst the "other things" it takes to deliver great UX design.

Very much as with animations.

Lost in Translation

My German-speaking readers will not need an explanation to understand the rather awkward translation in the Google Mail user interface that is shown below.

Googlemailconnection

For all others: What Google calls "Flaky Connection Mode" in the English version of the user interface is called "unzuverlässiger Verbindungsmodus" in German - which translates to "unreliable connection mode". Since "unzuverlässiger" is not capitalized, it comes across as an adjective that merely describes the type of connection you are likely to receive via that option: an unreliable one. (The English version capitalizes the first letter in "Flaky" to show that the word is part of the name.)

Users might rightfully wonder why they should click on the link at the bottom in order to switch to a "unreliable connection mode".

Simplicity in Communication

In his talk at TED conference, Alan Siegel talks about simplicity in legal communications. But then, the kind of simplicity that he describes is desirable for a lot of areas of life and work.

"I define simplicity as a means to achieving clarity, transparency and empathy - building humanity into communications."

Of course, these thoughts resonate with UX professionals. Our job, ultimately, is about humans. And this does not only include the users of the interfaces we are designing, but also all the people we are cooperating with in this endeavor. So, we should not only be "building humanity" into communications with users, but also strive for that goal when communicating with clients and other stakeholders - also to allow them to have empathy for users.

Therefore, when creating deliverables (whether the final user interface or the intermediate deliverables that get us there), we should have this concept of simplicity in mind in order to optimally support the respective communication partners. And we should also keep in mind that simplicity is not the same as (over-)simplification. To say it with Einstein: "Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."

What's The Name of Success?

Quick! Name three types of Apple MP3 players!

...
That was easy, wasn't it?

Now you might wonder what the sense of this exercise was. - Well, during this year's CeBIT I visited 3M's booth to check out their new multi touch LCD monitor. Afterwards, I browsed their website to get some more information - I had to browse because I could not remember the name of the monitor to search for it. It turned out that it's called "M2256PW" - sexy, isn't it? Other 3M touch screens are called "M1500SS", "M1700SS", "C1500SS" and "C1700SS".

The first experience we have concerning a product is often its name, e.g., when friends tell us about it.
When I was referring to my visit at 3M's booth, I always had to say that I had a look at "this new touch screen that 3M presented" or simply "the touch screen" - not very catchy. Which is kind of sad because the screen is not bad, and a catchy name would make referring to it in conversations much easier.

Now, I'm not saying that the name of a product is THE factor for success, but it certainly is a factor that should not be neglected. If you spent considerable effort on designing a product or service that shall provide the optimal user experience, you should give it a name that is unique and easy to remember in order to also provide an easy way of talking about it, because talking about a product or service is part of the "extended user experience" - and you want to make it easy for people to spread the word.

To sum it up: good usability makes the memory of interacting with the product stick in a good way. A catchy name makes it easier for the storys user tell about your product to stick, too. 

(Oh, and keep the name short, so people can tweet about it easily.)

Brief Thought: Language Barriers in the UX Profession?

What’s the name of the biggest conference for usability professionals in the German-speaking world? – „Usability Professionals“! (For you English-speaking people, that translates to „Usability Professionals“…)

And what is the German chapter of the UPA called? – “germanUPA” of course.

Makes you think about issues of cross-language communication as well as “UX-Pro – UXPro” vs. “UXpro – client” communication.

Could it be that (unconsciously) creating language barriers leads to problems with adoption of UX practices, e.g. in non-English speaking countries? How real is the danger of using English terms as “usability” or even (gasp) “user experience” so naturally when communicating with non-professionals that we are not aware of (implicit) misunderstandings and the trouble that they can create?