One of the increasingly blurry lines in the online world is the concept of websites vs. applications. Since the rise of the iPhone and its app store (and the corresponding app markets for platforms such as Android and Blackberry), the word "app" has rapidly spread into the mainstream. This is largely a distinction of marketing -- an "app" is really no different from what we've previously called "programs," "software," or even "games." But it also has started to overlap with the definition of "website."
For example, think of something like Google or Facebook -- these are websites. But they can also function as applications -- tools that you use often. And indeed, both have released "apps" for platforms such as the iPhone. But whether you use them in "app" format or "website" format, they function pretty much the same. The primary difference, really, is that an app is catered to the particular device you are using (although, with browser detection capabilities, a website can cater itself to your device as well).
The problem with this increasing overlap is that a lot of companies are misunderstanding what it means to have an "app," and they don't think about why other companies even have (or need) apps in the first place. I suspect a lot of people see the "social media" revolution and the increasing dominance of smart phones, and think they need to get in on it -- Make an app! Integrate with social media! Create user profiles and personalize based on each individual person! It's a marketing mantra that seems sensible -- reach your customers where they are rather than forcing them to come to you. So if Google and Facebook are websites, and they have apps, if I have a website, I should have an app too, right?
Well, no, not necessarily.
The fact is, most websites are NOT social media hubs or tools. Most websites are standalone pieces that people may visit once in their whole lives, or perhaps once every few months or so at a maximum. You might visit a furniture website when shopping for a couch and never come back. Maybe you need an exterminator and find them online, and then you never need them again. Perhaps you're going on vacation and check out a spa online at your destination, which you might never visit again. These are websites that deliver value at the time you use them, but you're not going back again very often (if ever). You're not going to make that exterminator's website your home page. You're not going to download the spa's app. And you're probably not going to set up a personal profile at a furniture studio's website.
But what about your favorite pizza delivery place? Your bank? Your favorite local clothing store? You might visit all of those places often, and would benefit from apps, profiles, or other long-term connections. Here's a few questions to ask yourself before you start thinking you need to be investing in these alternate methods of customer connection.
1. Do you provide a service or sell things that people tend to purchase frequently -- and can they make those purchases online?
If yes, you might benefit from an online profile that lets customers save their payment info and other preferences. You might also consider a simple mobile phone app that does the same thing.
2. Is there a useful (free) tool that you could provide online or via an app that your customers would use often and find valuable?
If yes, then you might benefit from providing an app or online tool. For example, I worked on Tide's "Stain Brain" website and app -- it gives tips for removing small stains on the go, which keeps Tide in the customer's mindset without requiring them to pay anything to use the app.
3. Does your business interact with the community in a way that engages people in a non-customer role (e.g., you sponsor a charity event with participants who aren't necessarily customers)?
If yes, then you might benefit from branching out via a stronger social media presence -- people are happy to support a cause by posting about it on Facebook or sending messages on Twitter to ask their friends to donate or help, and your name gets out there in the process.
If you can't answer yes to any of the above questions, there's a good chance you may not be in need of apps, social media, and user profiles. Any of those avenues done wrong can actually harm your image -- a useless app ends up looking like little more than an ad taking up space on your phone, a Twitter feed that is never updated just looks like you don't care about your business, and adding a user profile for a site you may rarely visit just frustrates the visitor and may serve as more of a barrier than a convenience.
So while everyone is shouting about the next wave of "customer enablement," keep in mind that it's not just whether or not you have an "app" -- it's a matter of whether or not that app (or profile, or Facebook page, etc.) actually offers any value to your audience.
Showing posts with label real world questions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label real world questions. Show all posts
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
When solutions create more problems
This will be a brief post, but it's been awhile since I've posted and I wanted to put something up, even if it was mostly an "aside."
THE PROBLEM
I listen to a lot of music and have several thousands of songs in my iTunes library. The problem with having so much music is that it can be hard to organize it and listen to songs I know I like while maintaining variety. If I only pick the songs I know I love, I end up just listening to a smaller and smaller subsection of the total library as it grows, leaving tons of songs sitting idly, unlistened. Yes, this is pretty mundane, but it is a problem I wanted to solve.
THE SOLUTION
One of the great aspects of iTunes is its "Smart Playlist" ability, where you can automatically generate playlists based on a number of factors. To re-introduce songs I hadn't heard in awhile, I created a playlist called "Listen Again." At first, I just set one parameter:
-Songs that I have listened to at least 10 times (showing that I liked them at some point) but haven't listened to in more than 2 months (showing I have forgotten about them).
This started off great, I started hearing songs again that I really enjoyed! But then another issue came up...
THE PROBLEM, PART 2
Some of these songs hadn't been listened to in 2+ months for a reason -- I didn't really like them all that much, or was already sick of them. As I continued to listen to the playlist, when I skipped those songs, they remained in the list, while the songs I liked automatically got booted off the list since they had now been played in the past 2 months. The result is that as time went by, the list became increasingly populated by songs I didn't want to listen to.
THE SOLUTION, PART 2
Well, lo and behold, there is another parameter I can use in iTunes to fix this!
-Songs that have been skipped at least once in the past month (removes songs I don't like, but allows them to return to the list in a month's time in case my taste changes by then).
Fantastic! The songs I skipped immediately got booted off the list. There are still two remaining problems, however...
THE PROBLEM, PARTS 3 & 4
I hadn't considered this until the playlist started cooking, but -- a lot of these songs haven't been played in 2+ months because they are Christmas-related songs! Whoops! There is no easy fix for this -- unless I go back and tag all those songs as belonging to the "Christmas" genre, and exclude that genre from the mix (which I may go and do later).
And then there's the biggest problem, really -- what to do with those songs that this playlist has allowed me to rediscover and enjoy? By virtue of being played, they are now immediately off the playlist! Is there another smart playlist I can create to capture them? This one I don't know how to answer. There may be a way to create a hybrid of songs that appeared on this and also were recently played, but I haven't figured it out yet.
Interestingly, iTunes offers several default smart playlists (recently added, most played, etc.) -- it'd be interesting to see if they expanded their default lists to include some similar concepts. Perhaps sparing users the work I just went through. They have made efforts with their Genius tool to expand your listening (which can also lead to expanding your buying), but I bet there's more that can be done.
THE PROBLEM
I listen to a lot of music and have several thousands of songs in my iTunes library. The problem with having so much music is that it can be hard to organize it and listen to songs I know I like while maintaining variety. If I only pick the songs I know I love, I end up just listening to a smaller and smaller subsection of the total library as it grows, leaving tons of songs sitting idly, unlistened. Yes, this is pretty mundane, but it is a problem I wanted to solve.
THE SOLUTION
One of the great aspects of iTunes is its "Smart Playlist" ability, where you can automatically generate playlists based on a number of factors. To re-introduce songs I hadn't heard in awhile, I created a playlist called "Listen Again." At first, I just set one parameter:
-Songs that I have listened to at least 10 times (showing that I liked them at some point) but haven't listened to in more than 2 months (showing I have forgotten about them).
This started off great, I started hearing songs again that I really enjoyed! But then another issue came up...
THE PROBLEM, PART 2
Some of these songs hadn't been listened to in 2+ months for a reason -- I didn't really like them all that much, or was already sick of them. As I continued to listen to the playlist, when I skipped those songs, they remained in the list, while the songs I liked automatically got booted off the list since they had now been played in the past 2 months. The result is that as time went by, the list became increasingly populated by songs I didn't want to listen to.
THE SOLUTION, PART 2
Well, lo and behold, there is another parameter I can use in iTunes to fix this!
-Songs that have been skipped at least once in the past month (removes songs I don't like, but allows them to return to the list in a month's time in case my taste changes by then).
Fantastic! The songs I skipped immediately got booted off the list. There are still two remaining problems, however...
THE PROBLEM, PARTS 3 & 4
I hadn't considered this until the playlist started cooking, but -- a lot of these songs haven't been played in 2+ months because they are Christmas-related songs! Whoops! There is no easy fix for this -- unless I go back and tag all those songs as belonging to the "Christmas" genre, and exclude that genre from the mix (which I may go and do later).
And then there's the biggest problem, really -- what to do with those songs that this playlist has allowed me to rediscover and enjoy? By virtue of being played, they are now immediately off the playlist! Is there another smart playlist I can create to capture them? This one I don't know how to answer. There may be a way to create a hybrid of songs that appeared on this and also were recently played, but I haven't figured it out yet.
Interestingly, iTunes offers several default smart playlists (recently added, most played, etc.) -- it'd be interesting to see if they expanded their default lists to include some similar concepts. Perhaps sparing users the work I just went through. They have made efforts with their Genius tool to expand your listening (which can also lead to expanding your buying), but I bet there's more that can be done.
Friday, February 13, 2009
The economy and usability fail each other... again.
In this story from CNN about the economic stimulus bill, there is a quote from a Republican which has a lot of validity to it:
And furthermore, it reduces transparency -- we do operate in a representative government where we don't expect average citizens to have the time (or inclination) to know everything about every bill, law, and regulation -- but sometimes it would be nice to know exactly what our reps are doing.
So why not have a straight up bulleted list up front of all the items contained within? It could look as simple as this, or even break down each section a little further:
This isn't about being too lazy to read, it's about realistically improving the decision-making process. Big long documents shouldn't be impressive -- clearly written and easy-to-understand documents should. If you have to have the former, the least you can do is provide the option of the latter.
(Note: I'm not making any commentary on whether or not I agree with the Republicans' stance on the stimulus bill, but I am more than willing to highlight a valid point!)
I blogged before about how usability could improve the mortgage process, and I think it could stand to do a lot to improve how bills are handled as well. No doubt the fine print of bills are necessary, but, at some point you have to be realistic. No one has time to read 1,000 page bills. It would take, probably quite literally, a few days straight of reading to get through it, let alone fully digest and understand it.Some representatives expressed frustration over how little time they had to read the 1,000-plus page bill.
"You can't be serious. This would be humorous if it wasn't so sad," said Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia. "What's in it? Have you read it?"
And furthermore, it reduces transparency -- we do operate in a representative government where we don't expect average citizens to have the time (or inclination) to know everything about every bill, law, and regulation -- but sometimes it would be nice to know exactly what our reps are doing.
So why not have a straight up bulleted list up front of all the items contained within? It could look as simple as this, or even break down each section a little further:
- $12 billion for street repairs (p. 193-195)
- $27 billion for environmentally friendly fuels (p. 344-350)
- $19 billion for school construction (p. 507-524)
- And so on...
This isn't about being too lazy to read, it's about realistically improving the decision-making process. Big long documents shouldn't be impressive -- clearly written and easy-to-understand documents should. If you have to have the former, the least you can do is provide the option of the latter.
(Note: I'm not making any commentary on whether or not I agree with the Republicans' stance on the stimulus bill, but I am more than willing to highlight a valid point!)
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
"In a perfect world..."
Most design agencies are structured into silos, with people specialized in different aspects of the design and management. I wrote about some of the problems this can create in an earlier post, but there's another aspect to specialization: we expect people in later stages of the process to be able to fully realize the ideas we have as designers earlier on in the process.
I have seen too many times an idea get implemented either without the interaction/design fully realized, or just plain implemented wrong. The results are almost always disappointing, and sometimes that seemingly small difference between well-polished and rough-around-the-edges is the difference between easy and frustrating. A poorly-implemented great idea is often worse than a well-implemented mediocre idea.
This is a tough situation to deal with, because often you won't know if the idea fails in implementation until it has actually been implemented, and at that point it may be too late to try an alternate approach. And even if you know it is risky, sometimes it is worth the risk. My best suggestions?
Make a sample version/functional prototype
Try to create a mini version of your big idea. Problems may rear their head that you didn't expect, while things you expected to be difficult may work out smoothly after all. In either case, it should tell you if it is worth exploring further or abandoning.
Do it yourself
You can't always do this in a large agency (in fact, you probably rarely can), but one of the benefits of working small or being an all-in-one freelancer is that you know fully the skills and knowledge of every one at every step -- because it might be you in every role. You may not know every single aspect of how to create something in advance, but it's important that you at least know how to learn everything needed, and that you can do it within the scope of your project.
Have a well-thought-out Plan B
Sometimes your Plan B may just be an earlier brainstorm that wasn't fully realized, but just as you should design for user failure, you should design for designer failure too. Unexpected obstacles are common, and the more ready you are with an alternate approach, the more likely your end result will be successful. Trying to patch up a sinking ship that has been battered and bruised may be a mistake -- sometimes you just need to scratch that ship and build another one. If you've got the blueprints for the second ship available already, you'll have a head start.
I've half-joked before that I want to become a "reality consultant" -- someone who can look at all the big ideas and plans and offer some cold hard reality about what is or isn't achievable, what will be simple or difficult, and ultimately where energy should be spent to really ensure something good in the end. But until that is a real job, we can all be our own reality consultants and be ready to adapt if our "perfect world" vision doesn't come to fruition.
I have seen too many times an idea get implemented either without the interaction/design fully realized, or just plain implemented wrong. The results are almost always disappointing, and sometimes that seemingly small difference between well-polished and rough-around-the-edges is the difference between easy and frustrating. A poorly-implemented great idea is often worse than a well-implemented mediocre idea.
This is a tough situation to deal with, because often you won't know if the idea fails in implementation until it has actually been implemented, and at that point it may be too late to try an alternate approach. And even if you know it is risky, sometimes it is worth the risk. My best suggestions?
Make a sample version/functional prototype
Try to create a mini version of your big idea. Problems may rear their head that you didn't expect, while things you expected to be difficult may work out smoothly after all. In either case, it should tell you if it is worth exploring further or abandoning.
Do it yourself
You can't always do this in a large agency (in fact, you probably rarely can), but one of the benefits of working small or being an all-in-one freelancer is that you know fully the skills and knowledge of every one at every step -- because it might be you in every role. You may not know every single aspect of how to create something in advance, but it's important that you at least know how to learn everything needed, and that you can do it within the scope of your project.
Have a well-thought-out Plan B
Sometimes your Plan B may just be an earlier brainstorm that wasn't fully realized, but just as you should design for user failure, you should design for designer failure too. Unexpected obstacles are common, and the more ready you are with an alternate approach, the more likely your end result will be successful. Trying to patch up a sinking ship that has been battered and bruised may be a mistake -- sometimes you just need to scratch that ship and build another one. If you've got the blueprints for the second ship available already, you'll have a head start.
I've half-joked before that I want to become a "reality consultant" -- someone who can look at all the big ideas and plans and offer some cold hard reality about what is or isn't achievable, what will be simple or difficult, and ultimately where energy should be spent to really ensure something good in the end. But until that is a real job, we can all be our own reality consultants and be ready to adapt if our "perfect world" vision doesn't come to fruition.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Predicting the future
Recently I've been reading or watching a few different older sci-fi works, and I'm particularly intrigued by how they believed the future would be, and how wrong they frequently were.
Paper
In Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" (1968), there are numerous references to carbon papers and onionskins -- in fact I don't think there is any reference to anything resembling a modern computer with an interface. And yet in this same book, which is the inspiration for "Blade Runner," there are androids that are so nearly identical to humans as to require bone marrow samples to determine if they are human or real. He was able to envision a future with complicated thinking robots, but not a future in which something more permanent and flexible than paper existed. (Obviously paper is still used, but could you imagine if the entire record of a criminal only existed on a photocopy somewhere, and not digitally stored?)
Televisions
Watching "Aliens" (1986) and the later, rarely remembered TV series "Earth 2" (1994-95), I am struck by how they both failed to foresee the death of the old cathode-ray monitor. Thin LCD and plasma screens have already well outpaced old-school TVs, and new OLED screens are so thin as to be pliable. It's also interesting to see how whenever "static" or a weak signal is depicted, it is shown through the screen turning fuzzy or lines running across the screen, as one might experience with a weak antenna. Well, as anyone with digital cable or even online video watchers may know, when you get a crappy video, you see pixellation and possibly missed frames.
Gadgetry
Whether it's the phone in "Aliens" (dialing via sticking a plastic card into a slot) or the VR "gear" in "Earth 2" (a bulky headset with awkwardly swinging eyepieces), a lot of sci-fi failed to predict things like Bluetooth (which is little more than an earbud) or even simple speed-dialing. And interestingly, nearly every piece of sci-fi seems to have thought that video-phones would be the way of the future. Well, the technology has been around for quite some time, and it just never took off. Why? Because we multitask, and if we're talking on the phone, there really is no need to also see the person. We might be doing the dishes or driving or doing some other task. We just don't really need or want that most of the time.
So what are we getting wrong now?
There are undoubtedly a number of things that will begin to look foolishly short-sighted in our current predictions of the future. I think of the standard keyboard and wonder if that will die -- will we continue typing this way at all? Will "typing" even exist as communication? I'm willing to bet that we'll soon be seeing more and more examples of mind-controlled interfaces. I'm not talking anything magic here, but just complicated systems of interpreting electrical impulses in the brain. This may not be any time soon, but when you set something far in the future, it's worth considering.
There's also something I've been reading about lately -- devices that are essentially real "transformers" -- objects that can become other objects. Essentially a collection of "nano-machines" that can rebuild themselves based on the user's need. I don't know the limitations of this, but it wouldn't surprise me to start seeing self-reconstructing devices within the next 20 years.
But, hey, in the 1960s they all thought we'd be taking rockets to the moon for vacation by now. And boy were they wrong.
Paper
In Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" (1968), there are numerous references to carbon papers and onionskins -- in fact I don't think there is any reference to anything resembling a modern computer with an interface. And yet in this same book, which is the inspiration for "Blade Runner," there are androids that are so nearly identical to humans as to require bone marrow samples to determine if they are human or real. He was able to envision a future with complicated thinking robots, but not a future in which something more permanent and flexible than paper existed. (Obviously paper is still used, but could you imagine if the entire record of a criminal only existed on a photocopy somewhere, and not digitally stored?)
Televisions
Watching "Aliens" (1986) and the later, rarely remembered TV series "Earth 2" (1994-95), I am struck by how they both failed to foresee the death of the old cathode-ray monitor. Thin LCD and plasma screens have already well outpaced old-school TVs, and new OLED screens are so thin as to be pliable. It's also interesting to see how whenever "static" or a weak signal is depicted, it is shown through the screen turning fuzzy or lines running across the screen, as one might experience with a weak antenna. Well, as anyone with digital cable or even online video watchers may know, when you get a crappy video, you see pixellation and possibly missed frames.
Gadgetry
Whether it's the phone in "Aliens" (dialing via sticking a plastic card into a slot) or the VR "gear" in "Earth 2" (a bulky headset with awkwardly swinging eyepieces), a lot of sci-fi failed to predict things like Bluetooth (which is little more than an earbud) or even simple speed-dialing. And interestingly, nearly every piece of sci-fi seems to have thought that video-phones would be the way of the future. Well, the technology has been around for quite some time, and it just never took off. Why? Because we multitask, and if we're talking on the phone, there really is no need to also see the person. We might be doing the dishes or driving or doing some other task. We just don't really need or want that most of the time.
So what are we getting wrong now?
There are undoubtedly a number of things that will begin to look foolishly short-sighted in our current predictions of the future. I think of the standard keyboard and wonder if that will die -- will we continue typing this way at all? Will "typing" even exist as communication? I'm willing to bet that we'll soon be seeing more and more examples of mind-controlled interfaces. I'm not talking anything magic here, but just complicated systems of interpreting electrical impulses in the brain. This may not be any time soon, but when you set something far in the future, it's worth considering.
There's also something I've been reading about lately -- devices that are essentially real "transformers" -- objects that can become other objects. Essentially a collection of "nano-machines" that can rebuild themselves based on the user's need. I don't know the limitations of this, but it wouldn't surprise me to start seeing self-reconstructing devices within the next 20 years.
But, hey, in the 1960s they all thought we'd be taking rockets to the moon for vacation by now. And boy were they wrong.
Monday, December 29, 2008
How things become "Things"
I don't know quite what to call them but I am fascinated by "unintended special events." That's a horrible term, but I'm referring to things that became "Things" accidentally. This is hard to explain so I'll just start giving some examples.
Black Friday
The first day after Thanksgiving has long been deemed "black Friday" by retailers (which means black as in, "in the black" -- making profit). But there was never some universal decision to make this a special day. I can't give a particularly knowledgeable history here but my best guess is that this became "black Friday" completely by accident. Over the years, as a consumer focus on Christmas shopping became more prevalent, I think we as a society moved more and more toward a "holiday to holiday" mindset. The stores stock items relevant to Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas in successive order, and the combination of Thanksgiving being over and most people having that Friday off from work turned that day into an ideal shopping day. Retailers capitalized on this, creating special sales, and the process fed on itself until the day became a shopping event. This year it got particularly crazy with one person at a Wal-Mart trampled to death and gunfire at a Toys 'R' Us. But when it comes down to it, there is no particular reason for this to be a special event. It is a byproduct of the holiday calendar and consumer marketing.
Superbowl Ads
By most standards, TV commercials are an annoyance -- they're something we put up with because they fund the networks that provide us with hours of (ostensible) entertainment. But now watching the Superbowl specifically for the commercials has become a national pastime. Much like Black Friday, this was an event that fed upon itself. Knowing the huge audience for the Superbowl, and the limited attention spans of viewers, companies put more and more effort into making their Superbowl ads stand out. As the audience got wise to this, they became more discerning, comparing the ads against each other, turning the event into the competition for the best Superbowl ad of the year. The free press (and today, re-viewing on sites like YouTube) often make the multi-million dollar investments for 30 seconds of airtime into cultural touchstones. Today, some people who don't even care about the Superbowl itself still watch just to see the ads -- something virtually no other program can lay claim to.
Red Carpet Fashion
The purpose of awards shows like the Oscars is to, well, give awards to the best films (or music, or TV, etc.) of the year, and to drum up some publicity and ticket sales in the process. But it was never the stated intent of such shows to promote fashion. But as more and more stars took the opportunity to look their best on Oscar day, the reporters on the red carpet in turn paid more notice to their clothes, and now many networks and publications give their own awards for "best dressed." Joan Rivers in particular has made "who are you wearing?" a key question on the red carpet. (It's worth noting that the term "red carpet" itself is a thing-turned-"Thing" -- it was only through the repeated use of red carpets on the walkways into awards halls that it came to be synonymous with awards shows and premieres.)
There are certainly more examples, but I love thinking about how these unexpected turns happen. There are a ton on the internet alone -- LOLspeak, viral marketing -- and I think it's important to distinguish this from "memes," which are brief trends that everyone knows about for a few months but soon die away. I may post a part 2 soon but I like being reminded that no matter how shrewd a marketer or advertiser may think he/she is, ultimately the biggest trends occur through a series of unplannable accidents.
Black Friday
The first day after Thanksgiving has long been deemed "black Friday" by retailers (which means black as in, "in the black" -- making profit). But there was never some universal decision to make this a special day. I can't give a particularly knowledgeable history here but my best guess is that this became "black Friday" completely by accident. Over the years, as a consumer focus on Christmas shopping became more prevalent, I think we as a society moved more and more toward a "holiday to holiday" mindset. The stores stock items relevant to Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas in successive order, and the combination of Thanksgiving being over and most people having that Friday off from work turned that day into an ideal shopping day. Retailers capitalized on this, creating special sales, and the process fed on itself until the day became a shopping event. This year it got particularly crazy with one person at a Wal-Mart trampled to death and gunfire at a Toys 'R' Us. But when it comes down to it, there is no particular reason for this to be a special event. It is a byproduct of the holiday calendar and consumer marketing.
Superbowl Ads
By most standards, TV commercials are an annoyance -- they're something we put up with because they fund the networks that provide us with hours of (ostensible) entertainment. But now watching the Superbowl specifically for the commercials has become a national pastime. Much like Black Friday, this was an event that fed upon itself. Knowing the huge audience for the Superbowl, and the limited attention spans of viewers, companies put more and more effort into making their Superbowl ads stand out. As the audience got wise to this, they became more discerning, comparing the ads against each other, turning the event into the competition for the best Superbowl ad of the year. The free press (and today, re-viewing on sites like YouTube) often make the multi-million dollar investments for 30 seconds of airtime into cultural touchstones. Today, some people who don't even care about the Superbowl itself still watch just to see the ads -- something virtually no other program can lay claim to.
Red Carpet Fashion
The purpose of awards shows like the Oscars is to, well, give awards to the best films (or music, or TV, etc.) of the year, and to drum up some publicity and ticket sales in the process. But it was never the stated intent of such shows to promote fashion. But as more and more stars took the opportunity to look their best on Oscar day, the reporters on the red carpet in turn paid more notice to their clothes, and now many networks and publications give their own awards for "best dressed." Joan Rivers in particular has made "who are you wearing?" a key question on the red carpet. (It's worth noting that the term "red carpet" itself is a thing-turned-"Thing" -- it was only through the repeated use of red carpets on the walkways into awards halls that it came to be synonymous with awards shows and premieres.)
There are certainly more examples, but I love thinking about how these unexpected turns happen. There are a ton on the internet alone -- LOLspeak, viral marketing -- and I think it's important to distinguish this from "memes," which are brief trends that everyone knows about for a few months but soon die away. I may post a part 2 soon but I like being reminded that no matter how shrewd a marketer or advertiser may think he/she is, ultimately the biggest trends occur through a series of unplannable accidents.
Friday, December 19, 2008
More on the overlap of politics and usability
In my last entry I mentioned how I feared getting too political. But despite that fear I'm going to soldier on. I've become borderline obsessed with the economy, and various approaches to handling it, and have constantly been thinking about the decisions I would think best were I in a position of power.
Full disclosure -- I have considered myself most closely connected to libertarianism, as I like the concept that we really should be free to do what we want without government intervention. But, and here's where usability kicks in -- we don't always *know* everything necessary to make the best choices.
There seems to be two sides to this -- either you say that it is up to you to educate yourself, and a bad choice is your own fault, but you are free to make it, or you say that people should be prevented from making such bad choices through regulation and laws that take bad options off the table.
I've come to appreciate the concept of "soft paternalism" or "libertarian paternalism," which basically says, you are free to make whatever choice you want, but we are going to try our best to steer you in the right direction.
This is almost the essence of usability in a nutshell. Make it easy for people to make choices that will satisfy them. Emphasize the most common or most logical paths but provide alternate routes to get to other options if someone knows specifically what they already want. The wikipedia article I link above has a great description, with specific reference to "defaults" -- a concept that usability expert Jakob Nielsen has written about, stressing the importance of setting defaults wisely so they are set to the most likely beneficial setting.
Compare the two. Wikipedia, giving the example of setting your retirement contribution from your paycheck (emphasis mine in both quotes):
I don't know that this means that "soft paternalism" and "good usability" are identical, or that the concepts therein can be applied universally, but I was struck at the similarities between the two. At the very least, it shows that you can successfully apply similar philosophies to different disciplines.
Full disclosure -- I have considered myself most closely connected to libertarianism, as I like the concept that we really should be free to do what we want without government intervention. But, and here's where usability kicks in -- we don't always *know* everything necessary to make the best choices.
There seems to be two sides to this -- either you say that it is up to you to educate yourself, and a bad choice is your own fault, but you are free to make it, or you say that people should be prevented from making such bad choices through regulation and laws that take bad options off the table.
I've come to appreciate the concept of "soft paternalism" or "libertarian paternalism," which basically says, you are free to make whatever choice you want, but we are going to try our best to steer you in the right direction.
This is almost the essence of usability in a nutshell. Make it easy for people to make choices that will satisfy them. Emphasize the most common or most logical paths but provide alternate routes to get to other options if someone knows specifically what they already want. The wikipedia article I link above has a great description, with specific reference to "defaults" -- a concept that usability expert Jakob Nielsen has written about, stressing the importance of setting defaults wisely so they are set to the most likely beneficial setting.
Compare the two. Wikipedia, giving the example of setting your retirement contribution from your paycheck (emphasis mine in both quotes):
The asymmetry of soft paternalism can be seen in the case of a policy which raises default rates. Those who are making an informed deliberate choice to put aside zero percent of their income in tax deferred savings still have this option, but those who were not saving simply out of inertia or due to procrastination are helped by higher default contribution rates.Now read Jakob Nielsen:
Users rely on defaults in many other areas of user interface design. For example, they rarely utilize fancy customization features, making it important to optimize the default user experience, since that's what most users stick to. ... By educating and guiding users, default values help reduce errors. It's therefore important to select helpful defaults, rather than those based on the first letter of the alphabet or whatever the first option on your original list happened to be.Imagine for a moment that at all aspects of our lives, rather than starting from "zero" on any new thing, we started anything by being told right off the bat what the most common or most beneficial starting place was, but were given the option to change that in any way we see fit. Smart businesses already apply this in many areas, essentially putting Nielsen's usability advice in effect. But I think the applications of such a concept are much more far-reaching.
I don't know that this means that "soft paternalism" and "good usability" are identical, or that the concepts therein can be applied universally, but I was struck at the similarities between the two. At the very least, it shows that you can successfully apply similar philosophies to different disciplines.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Could better usability save the economy?
Okay, maybe that headline is an overstatement, but I'd say usability is an overlooked component in saving the economy. Like any American who pays attention to current events, the economic downturn is at the forefront of my mind right now. And there is one area that has troubled me quite a bit -- the whole mortgage meltdown.
There are kind of two sides to the mortgage problem (ignoring for a moment the whole "credit swaps" thing -- which is a pretty big piece to ignore but just roll with me here): there are the individuals who bought homes they could not afford, and there are the lenders who signed off on mortgages they likely knew the buyer could not afford to repay.
Much has been made of the "predatory lenders" -- the system is set up such that a lot of the places granting the initial mortgages get a few years of high (or all) interest payments before passing the mortgage off to some larger firm for the remainder and letting them deal with the fallout of potential foreclosure. Ultimately, the initial lenders don't really care about whether or not the lendee can pay it all back -- they just want that initial burst of nearly pure-profit payments.
But what bothers me about this attack on "predatory lenders" is that pretty much any business out there seeks to increase profit, so why pick on lenders? It seems to be to be attaching some moral expectation to something that is amoral (not immoral, mind you). Paying for goods and services is a mutual exchange where each side gets something they want.
The consumer-minded side says this is unfair, but I think it's risky to remove any responsibility from the individual. If you sign a contract that requires you to pay a certain amount of money, it's ultimately your own fault if you end up unable to hold up your end of the bargain. Really, a foreclosure is the fault of the homeowner, not the lender -- even if the lender suspected you wouldn't be able to pay it back, if you have stated that you can and will pay things back, you're the one who's made the promise you can't keep.
Where this all breaks down is that not every lender is going to be explicit in terms of costs, not every homeowner is going to know to check all the fine print, and those two problems can feed off each other into a pretty dangerous spiral.
This is where usability comes into play. One of the tenets of good usability is that you don't blame the "user" if they have a problem. Even if everything to accomplish a task is there, if your users are failing to do it, then you have a problem with the presentation. You don't just say your users are stupid (because then you're both insulting your customers and losing business), you try to adjust things to make it clearer and easier to understand.
I am not familiar with the rules and regulations around signing a mortgage, but I am virtually certain the amount of paperwork involved would be confusing to even the savviest person. From a usability perspective, it's a nightmare. I have no doubt that people have signed contracts not realizing that the initial $800 a month payment is going to balloon to $2000, or that the total they pay for a $300,000 home is actually going to be something like a million dollars.
Imagine for a moment that regulations required that all major contracts have a one-page cover sheet that included clearly the monthly payment, how the monthly payment may change over time, the breakdown of interest and principal, and the total amount to be eventually paid. All of this in nice big fonts with a clear layout that is easy to read.
I fear getting too political in this blog, but I can't help but think that so many of the problems in our current economic crisis boil down to people making decisions without knowing all the information. And while many people think that the problem was a lack of regulating the kinds of decisions that could be made, I would say that the greater problem was not requiring full disclosure and clarity be provided before anyone makes any major transaction. Whether that is a potential homeowner or a potential investor, if there was a requirement of a crystal clear one-sheet explanation of the pending transaction in layman's terms, you may find fewer questionable decisions being made in the first place.
As an analogy, New York City recently began requiring chain restaurants to print calorie information next to meals. The caloric totals shocked people (some salads have more calories than a burger and fries!?), but those trying to eat healthy had full information at their disposal rather than uninformed guessing. Compare this regulation to some alternative legislation that may have required that restaurants stop serving high calorie dishes altogether. The former regulation puts the onus on the individual, but provides them with full disclosure in a clear manner. The other is the government deciding what's good for you, expecting that you won't make the good decision for yourself and taking options off the table. I'm sure some people would still prefer the latter, but I really think that letting people make their own choice, for good or bad, is better than trying to make it for them -- just make sure they know the consequences of their choices.
Usability is ultimately about providng clear information. If we can manage that, and let people make fully informed decisions, we can encourage responsibility without removing choice.
There are kind of two sides to the mortgage problem (ignoring for a moment the whole "credit swaps" thing -- which is a pretty big piece to ignore but just roll with me here): there are the individuals who bought homes they could not afford, and there are the lenders who signed off on mortgages they likely knew the buyer could not afford to repay.
Much has been made of the "predatory lenders" -- the system is set up such that a lot of the places granting the initial mortgages get a few years of high (or all) interest payments before passing the mortgage off to some larger firm for the remainder and letting them deal with the fallout of potential foreclosure. Ultimately, the initial lenders don't really care about whether or not the lendee can pay it all back -- they just want that initial burst of nearly pure-profit payments.
But what bothers me about this attack on "predatory lenders" is that pretty much any business out there seeks to increase profit, so why pick on lenders? It seems to be to be attaching some moral expectation to something that is amoral (not immoral, mind you). Paying for goods and services is a mutual exchange where each side gets something they want.
The consumer-minded side says this is unfair, but I think it's risky to remove any responsibility from the individual. If you sign a contract that requires you to pay a certain amount of money, it's ultimately your own fault if you end up unable to hold up your end of the bargain. Really, a foreclosure is the fault of the homeowner, not the lender -- even if the lender suspected you wouldn't be able to pay it back, if you have stated that you can and will pay things back, you're the one who's made the promise you can't keep.
Where this all breaks down is that not every lender is going to be explicit in terms of costs, not every homeowner is going to know to check all the fine print, and those two problems can feed off each other into a pretty dangerous spiral.
This is where usability comes into play. One of the tenets of good usability is that you don't blame the "user" if they have a problem. Even if everything to accomplish a task is there, if your users are failing to do it, then you have a problem with the presentation. You don't just say your users are stupid (because then you're both insulting your customers and losing business), you try to adjust things to make it clearer and easier to understand.
I am not familiar with the rules and regulations around signing a mortgage, but I am virtually certain the amount of paperwork involved would be confusing to even the savviest person. From a usability perspective, it's a nightmare. I have no doubt that people have signed contracts not realizing that the initial $800 a month payment is going to balloon to $2000, or that the total they pay for a $300,000 home is actually going to be something like a million dollars.
Imagine for a moment that regulations required that all major contracts have a one-page cover sheet that included clearly the monthly payment, how the monthly payment may change over time, the breakdown of interest and principal, and the total amount to be eventually paid. All of this in nice big fonts with a clear layout that is easy to read.
I fear getting too political in this blog, but I can't help but think that so many of the problems in our current economic crisis boil down to people making decisions without knowing all the information. And while many people think that the problem was a lack of regulating the kinds of decisions that could be made, I would say that the greater problem was not requiring full disclosure and clarity be provided before anyone makes any major transaction. Whether that is a potential homeowner or a potential investor, if there was a requirement of a crystal clear one-sheet explanation of the pending transaction in layman's terms, you may find fewer questionable decisions being made in the first place.
As an analogy, New York City recently began requiring chain restaurants to print calorie information next to meals. The caloric totals shocked people (some salads have more calories than a burger and fries!?), but those trying to eat healthy had full information at their disposal rather than uninformed guessing. Compare this regulation to some alternative legislation that may have required that restaurants stop serving high calorie dishes altogether. The former regulation puts the onus on the individual, but provides them with full disclosure in a clear manner. The other is the government deciding what's good for you, expecting that you won't make the good decision for yourself and taking options off the table. I'm sure some people would still prefer the latter, but I really think that letting people make their own choice, for good or bad, is better than trying to make it for them -- just make sure they know the consequences of their choices.
Usability is ultimately about providng clear information. If we can manage that, and let people make fully informed decisions, we can encourage responsibility without removing choice.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Why are the basics still so hard?
Last week I encountered a few situations where all I could think was, "why is this still so difficult?" In one case, someone who was incredibly tech savvy was having difficulty getting a TV to work with a particular attached device -- shouldn't this be easy by now? Why do we all still have four television remotes? Why is there such a confusing jumble of wires and inputs? Why haven't we figured this out yet? Virtually everyone (at least in the US) has a TV and at least one device attached to it -- a DVD player, a cable box, or maybe a TiVo, or AppleTV, or even a full home media system -- but these systems still seem designed from an engineer's perspective, not for the average Joe.
I don't know how to answer all those questions I posited there, but I'm hoping that we eventually reach a point where we start making a little more room for real world usability. I've heard (unfortunately I can't cite a statistic) that HDTVs are frequently returned because people think they're broken, when in reality it's because they haven't attached it to their cable connection correctly or they have not properly adjusted the settings, and if you mess all that up, the end picture often looks worse than old analog TV. But, how is an average person supposed to know that? And at what point do you get enough complaints and returns to actually go back to the design phase and say, "let's simplify this"?
A lot of designers thinks this means that people are stupid, and you have to oversimplify to the point of babying people. Let's snap out of that mindset, and instead try putting ourselves in someone else's shoes. Imagine some field you know nothing at all about, and now imagine an expert working on something that is ultimately meant for you, the "average" person. Wouldn't you want them to make it as clear and easy for you to understand as possible? So why balk at doing that in design?
I don't know how to answer all those questions I posited there, but I'm hoping that we eventually reach a point where we start making a little more room for real world usability. I've heard (unfortunately I can't cite a statistic) that HDTVs are frequently returned because people think they're broken, when in reality it's because they haven't attached it to their cable connection correctly or they have not properly adjusted the settings, and if you mess all that up, the end picture often looks worse than old analog TV. But, how is an average person supposed to know that? And at what point do you get enough complaints and returns to actually go back to the design phase and say, "let's simplify this"?
A lot of designers thinks this means that people are stupid, and you have to oversimplify to the point of babying people. Let's snap out of that mindset, and instead try putting ourselves in someone else's shoes. Imagine some field you know nothing at all about, and now imagine an expert working on something that is ultimately meant for you, the "average" person. Wouldn't you want them to make it as clear and easy for you to understand as possible? So why balk at doing that in design?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)