Trust and faith in design

It's a cliche to make fun of older generations and their discomfort with technology, but that stereotypical technophobia is really just an extreme version of something all of us probably feel at some point or another: a lack of trust and faith in the system we are using.

What does this button do?
I remember having someone ask me, "What do I do to submit the form? Do I press the submit button?" The answer, to most of us, is "yes, duh." But what if the question is less clear? Navigational terms don't match what you thought you'd find. Something you thought was a free trial asks for your credit card and doesn't explain why. A link that seemed obvious takes you to a completely unexpected page or site. In each case, the design is playing fast and loose with the user's trust and faith, and as a result, is probably failing the user's needs.

Anticipate the next step
Good design anticipates what the user will want. On your homepage, offer links to the things your visitors most likely will want. Look at the search terms people use to find things on your site, and make sure your navigational terms match them. Whenever you ask a user for information, explain why you want it and how it will be used.

Explain yourself
One place that I frequently see abused is the "contact us" page -- many sites will ask for name, address, phone number, email, sometimes even fax number and company, and in worst-case scenarios, they'll even tack on some "survey" type questions -- even if all you wanted to do was maybe email them to ask about the release date of an upcoming product. In that scenario, literally the only piece of information the company actually needs is your email address. So why ask for the moon? Is it because your designer just used a "contact us" template and didn't really think about what that means for the user? Is it because you are adding me to a database you are going to sell to third parties? And even if all you do ask for is my email address, will you start sending me unwanted email newsletters without asking? Tell the user up front, and let them make the informed decision. (Even better, in this scenario, you could save the user and yourself time by having just clearly listed the product release date on your site in the first place.)

Expect questions, and provide answers
One thing I try to do when starting any project is just write down a list of questions I think a user/visitor may have, based on the type of site/product and the customer base. I try not to get overly specific but the questions should not just be the broad ones either -- for example, on a shoe site, I wouldn't write out questions about a particular pair of shoes, but I might write out questions about broader types of shoes, or questions that might apply to any individual pair of shoes.

Prioritize and group logically
From there, I try to group the questions logically, and see if they align to particular terms. If possible, prioritize the questions as well, and make it easier to find the answers to those more essential questions. This is also where some statistical data can come in handy -- search terms used, frequency of visits to particular areas of a site, volume of support emails/calls about particular topics. Maybe half the visitors to your site are just trying to find your address, and already know all about your product/service. You could have a beautiful, highly usable presentation of your product line, but if that address is hard to find, you are failing half your audience from the start.

I've found that structuring a website around this is a good way to meet user's needs, and a lot of this work can inform other decisions down the line, and make it easier to work in changes/new ideas -- just follow a mini-version of these steps (asking questions, grouping them, working out logical answers) and see if your architecture already accommodates these changes or if you need to restructure.

By anticipating everything the user will want, and providing easy answers to key questions and presenting them at logical points, you build that trust and faith. You're more likely to have a happy customer, and you reduce anxiety.

Usability Case Study: Comcast

I've heard a lot of horror stories about Comcast -- terrible customer service, too expensive, half-assed installations that sometimes end up destroying walls -- but when I moved this past weekend into a new apartment in Boston, I had to say goodbye to RCN and sign up with Comcast.

I try to keep an open mind, so I was willing to let the bad stories I'd heard recede, and look at my Comcast experience with out prejudging. Some of the experience was bad, some was good. Overall, for Comcast, this can serve as a case study in how they could improve their sign up process.

1. Signing up online
The first thing I did was visit the Comcast website and try to put together the package I wanted. We needed cable and internet, but no phone, and they did have a bundle for those two things. But they only had ONE bundle -- oddly enough, with the most basic cable offering they have, which excluded a few too many channels for my liking. When I tried to build my own bundle with the next level of cable, any bundle savings were erased, and there was no option to upgrade the basic bundle. Here I was, a customer wanting to spend MORE than the basic bundle offered, but the online system offered no way to do this. I gave up.
Verdict: FAIL
How to fix it: System should genuinely show all options, and make it easier to customize your package.

2. Signing up by phone automated prompts
Defeated by their website, I decided to just call to set it up. The very first thing that comes up in their automated prompt is "Enter the phone number where you would like service." This is a problem on many levels. First, Comcast offers phone service, so you could conceivably NOT have a phone number yet for the place you want to have it installed. Second, and here's what applies in my case, I am a cell-only person and do not have or want a landline. So the place where I want service has no phone number. Hoping to get to a prompt that makes more sense, I hit #. It asks me for my number again, and I hit # again hoping I'll get an operator or something. Instead it reads me back the phone number of the line I am calling on, assuming it is where I want service. Since I am calling from a landline at work, this is definitely not the number I want, so I hit a series of other buttons hoping to get out of installing cable at my workplace. Eventually, I somehow get a live person.
Verdict: FAIL
How to fix it: I suspect this may be the case, but a simple change in language could go the distance -- "Enter the phone number you would like to use for your contact information. If you are ordering phone service as part of your package, press *." This addresses both problem scenarios -- you don't have a landline, or you are adding a new landline.

3. Signing up by phone with a representative
Once I finally got a representative, which didn't take very long (no 30 minute wait for me), the process actually went quite smoothly. The man was helpful, understood exactly what I was asking for, explained the pricing and the promotional period, set up installation, it was a breeze. The only thing I realized after the call was that he had never taken my email address, which would've been nice so I could've gotten some email confirmation. But, not a big deal.
Verdict: SUCCESS

4. Installation
The installation was supposed to happen between 11am-1pm, and just as scheduled they showed up just after 11am, even though there was a huge snowstorm. They installed everything quickly, and were very nice -- they even took my roommate's old cable box with them to save him the return hassle.
Verdict: SUCCESS

5. Setting up internet
The one thing I had to set up on my own was the internet. They brought the modem but I had to activate it. Which would've been a breeze, except the first thing the system asks for is your account number. Since I had never been asked for my email address, I had no email record with that information. I looked through the documents the installers brought, and nothing had any personalized information -- no account number there either. I had never been given my account number! And the prompts offered no "don't have your account number?" prompt like many online services offer for people in my shoes. I had to call to get it, and this time I did have to wait about 10+ minutes on the phone to get a representative. Fortunately they gave me my number quickly, and then I was able to complete the setup.
Verdict: MIXED
How to fix it: Installation should come with some sort of confirmation sheet or other personalized document including your account number. But ideally, the internet activation should offer a "don't have your account number?" link that lets you enter in other information (SSN, phone number, address, etc.).

6. Ordering TiVo service on the website
Once I got everything set up, I tried to hook up my old TiVo box and realized that my new fancy HD setup did not work with my old school TiVo -- and the TiVo couldn't even communicate with the cable box to change channels, making it useless completely. I had seen billboards around town advertising that Comcast had partnered with TiVo to offer that service. Since I hate typical cable DVRs, I thought this would be a great alternative. I go online to the Comcast TiVo site, and it asks me for my zip code to check availability. Success! It is available locally (which makes sense, given the billboards). Now it's redirecting me to the order page, and... "This package or service is no longer available." What? In fact I can't find anything on the site to actually order the service. Which I know they are offering.
Verdict: FAIL
How to fix it: See #1. Don't tell me you have a service and then don't let me sign up for it. Get your system up to date, Comcast! Furthermore, include pricing information up front -- the page for TiVo did not include this.

7. Ordering TiVo via live chat
Just to try one more avenue of communication, I decide to use the live chat function rather than waiting on hold for a phone representative. No one is immediately available on the chat, but it does tell me what number I am in the queue, which is nice. It takes about 5-10 minutes for someone to show up, but since I am online I am able to do other things so I don't mind the wait. The representative is very helpful, answers my questions quickly, and I am surprised to learn that to get TiVo HD I do not need to buy a box or even pay an expensive initial setup fee, and the monthly fee is actually less than I was paying on my old TiVo. A pleasant surprise. The installation is set up quickly, and I'm done.
Verdict: SUCCESS

Overall, I was impressed by the actual human interactions -- people were friendly, and although not every phone call/live chat was answered immediately, the waits weren't too terrible. As for the website, it proved almost completely useless. It did not show all the options available, and in the case of TiVo, didn't even show the service at all. Even worse was the automated phone system, which started of on such a wrong footing that I got worried I was going to accidentally set up something at the complete wrong location.

Now I am not someone who hates using websites and automated phone systems to complete transactions -- in fact I prefer it greatly. If I can set something up without having to talk to someone, I am happy, as it saves me time and I can do it whenever I want. And, as far as I know, it greatly reduces the cost to the company. One client I worked with once mentioned that it cost them $14 per call due to the costs of maintaining that system and paying for call representatives. It would be to Comcast's extreme benefit to improve their system. And considering they are a company offering internet service, it speaks quite poorly of them that they cannot even offer a successful online interface.

Now let's just see how billing goes...

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:

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?"

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.

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...

Of course, that may oversimplify things, but if you're fairly certain you're on board with street repairs, but not so sure about environmentally friendly fuels, you can focus on reading the fuels section.

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!)

Beware the permanent brainstorm

There is a particular type of person out there who is very creative, who loves to come up with new ideas, who gets excited about a new concept they think could be really successful or beneficial. These people are vital -- without them, many (if not all) of the big ideas that have changed our lives would never have happened.

But there is one flaw that often comes hand-in-hand with this level of creativity and brainstorming. For every Steve Jobs (Apple), Bill Gates (Microsoft), and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), there is that friend you have who is convinced that adding zipper pockets to suspenders is the next big thing. Or maybe that was last week, and now they're pitching tiny umbrellas for cellphones. In any case, their mind seems to always be working, but never carrying through the thoughts to something that is not only a great idea, but one that they can (and do) actually implement. I call this the danger of the "permanent brainstorm."

Those examples are extreme, but I believe there can be a real danger to focusing so much on the brainstorming and "ideating" portion of a project that you never get off the ground and develop something real.

For a more grounded example, consider a project where a company wants to come up with a new marketing website. All they know at first is that they want to target a new audience that they don't currently speak to. The brainstorming phase begins, and the team narrows it down to one particular concept.

This could go two ways -- the team could further focus in, delineate their ideas, and develop them into a site and get it live.

Or they could just keep brainstorming. What if we broaden it to include this other audience as well? What if we focus more on the interactive games? What if we switch from an edgy/rough look to a clean/modern look? And then after trying all those alternatives, they keep spinning around to other ideas. A hot new competitor site shows up halfway through the project, and they want to take some of the competitor's ideas and re-think the original goal.

You get the picture. The ideas keep coming, the project keeps changing, people second-guess their original ideas and the whole thing continues to mutate and shift even as it's supposed to be nearing its completion. The budget has swelled, the timeline has been shot, and corners are being cut that could make the difference between something great and simple and something overly ambitious and complicated.

Of course, this is not to say that brainstorming is bad - as I mentioned before, it's the brainstormers who come up with all the big new ideas. The key is knowing when to shift away from generating more ideas and shift toward refining and implementing your original idea. It can be scary sometimes to do this, but it's all about putting a stake in the ground and saying "this phase is done, we need to move on to the next phase, or else we're going to get stuck."

That can be a hard thing to do. Nobody likes the idea of setting something in stone when they are anything less than 100% sure of it -- and rarely is any new idea a 100% bet. But this is where handy metaphors and sayings run short -- unless you are engraving tombstones, you're not literally setting things in stone. You can make changes later on if need be -- it's just important to respect that those changes should be based on fully reasoned thinking, not whims, or a dream you had last night, or what your 5 year old said when he saw a mock-up of the project.

Be excited. Think wildly. But recognize that as part of any project, brainstorming is just step one. It takes a lot of work to turn a good idea into a good product, and you'll never get to a successful end if you never leave step one.

michaelhisten.com 3.0

It wasn't that long ago that I did a redesign of my portfolio website, www.michaelhisten.com. It was not a very dramatic change, it mostly focused on enhancing the content and involved adding my beloved color switcher. But as I started writing more in this blog, I realized I wasn't listening to a lot of my own advice when it came to my own site.

I was concerned about a few things -- one, the level of simplicity of the old site was so extreme that I was worried people would assume that's all I could do. To make up for that, I've ditched the "no graphics" concept and used some imagery and gradients, including using the font FD Helwoodica, an all-lowercase distressed take on my favorite font, Helvetica.

But perhaps my biggest issue with my site was that I was falling victim to that perennial trap -- thinking my content was more interesting than it was. Some site statistics bore this out, but basically, people didn't bother reading much of any of the content pages and just went straight for the portfolio section. To top it off, my portfolio examples did not have thumbnail imagery to give you a preview until you clicked on the name of a project. This, combined with some research into how other designers out there are presenting their profiles, led me to embrace the idea of a one-page website.

Yup, just one page, there's nothing more than what you see when you land there. Of course, clicking thumbnails gives you larger views (much larger than before -- more than twice as large, in fact) of each project, but now all those projects are front and center. I think the end result is that people will get a quick glimpse of what I can do, and they can then read a little bit in the area at the bottom of the page, and then I encourage them to contact me for more. If they want to read more about me and my design philosophy, the blog is right here. All in all, I'm very happy with the update.

Oh, and that color switcher is still there -- I still love the idea of giving visitors a little interactivity!

"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.

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.