On UI Walkthroughs

UX Walkthrough

The UX kerfuffle du jour surrounds the alleged evil of UX walkthroughs…you know, those screens that come up when you first launch an app, showing you where to poke, pull, pinch, and tap. The gist of the complaints, summarized pretty well here, is that the very need for a UX walkthrough implies the interface itself has failed to provide enough clues and cues about its utility. Put another way, UX walkthroughs are kind of like helping someone get around a darkened room after you’ve intentionally turned off the lights.

I’ve seen examples of UX walkthroughs that were either gratuitous and unnecessary, or were implemented because the UI lacked adequate affordance. That said, I’ve seen UX Walkthroughs that are very helpful. Case in point: the Feedly app recently introduced a new way to mark an article as read by swiping from right to left (previously, it was a downward swipe). It’s a great trick, but one I would not have learned easily had there not been a walkthrough tip when I launched the app after an update . Likewise, the insanely cool Rise app provides a simple UX walkthrough that expedites one’s ability to get going. In both cases, the walkthrough simply sped up my ability to be productive and engaged.

The argument that all UX walkthroughs are evil is silly. Some tools tell you how they are to be used just by their very form…a hammer, for example. Others, like a carpenter’s plane, perform a more sophisticated function and therefore have a more sophisticated form factor. Wouldn’t it be nice if they explained themselves before use? Think of it this way: if you’ve designed a hammer that requires instruction, you’ve probably failed. A plane? Not so much.

As I’ve said before, and will likely to continue to say, in UX there simply are very few hard and fast rules. Whatever works, works.

//

Let me know what you think on Twitter: @mmcwatters

me

Why

I was updating the Experience section on my LinkedIn profile today. What I had there just seemed…wrong. I’m not sure what I ended up replacing it with is necessarily that much better in terms of the context, but it pretty much sums up where I am at this moment in time as a UX professional. Here it is:

As long as I can remember I’ve wanted to help shape experiences, to create things that people would interact with, to make things just a little bit better.

So while I’ve worked for great firms, helped recognized brands, and won some awards along the way, what has always mattered most is the challenge just in front of me.

At this point, I’m most excited by how my skills and knowledge can solve not just business problems, but human problems as well. This is an exciting time to be a UX professional.

Thorn

The Tiniest Thorn

I’m probably going to stop using Facebook, or at least severely curtail my usage.

The reason isn’t what you might suspect: it’s not the ads (Facebook is a business, after all), privacy concerns (privacy…what a quaint notion), or even the much despised timeline (I don’t despise it, for the record).

No, the reason I may stop using Facebook is, in my opinion, a great example of why we need to pay attention to the little things.

You see, I primarily visit Facebook on a mobile device, either my iPhone or my iPad, and the Facebook app for those devices is slow. Glacially slow. I mean, I’m there to check in, right? Make a quick visit, say hello, see what’s going on, maybe post something of interest. I don’t have 30 seconds to sit around looking at a blank screen waiting for the timeline to load. And if I dare to see a comment? Forget it, I might as well put a kettle on (and that’s just crazy, because I don’t even drink tea).

Before you say it’s my connection, it’s not my connection: I have a very fast WiFi network at home. And even if my connection was slow, competing apps for Twitter and Path, which essentially do the same thing, are much more spritely.

Speaking of those other social networks: the only reason I still go to Facebook is because it’s where the vast majority of my friends and family hang out. (Yes, yes: Google+ is much faster, but only 5% of my friends are there. Maybe in a year or two, but I’m not holding my breath.)

I’m sure there are some very valid reasons why the Facebook mobile experience is slow (elderly hamsters or clogged Internet tubes or something) but as a user, they don’t really interest me.

Facebook is fortunate they have something I really want: my family and friends, hostages all! But that’s still not enough to keep me from abandoning ship, and I imagine I’m not alone.

But what of other businesses, those that don’t have the kind of stickiness Facebook enjoys? All I can say is this: details matter. The tiniest thorn can bring down the biggest elephant.

//

Let me know what you think on Twitter: @mmcwatters

minus

Innovation by Subtraction

We tend to think of innovation as an additive process. We ask ourselves, “What new thing can we do, what new feature can we add, what more should we do to make our product better?”

And it works: innovation as an additive process can be very powerful in a nascent context, where true differentiation requires leaps and bounds advances. But in more mature contexts, subtraction can be an even more potent form of innovation. Where your competitors are scrambling to add more of this or that, you can remove, reduce, and refocus on those things that really matter to your customers. Where others are piling on, you can strip away.

It’s not easy to be subtractive. Besides the natural desire to build, there is the organizational tendency to reward those who are additive in their approach. It’s much easier to envision getting a promotion based on doing something new, rather than removing something old. This means focusing not on what was done, additive or subtractive, but what the results were. Did you make things better or worse? Did your innovation help or hinder? Did you contribute to bloat, or did you facilitate efficiency?

In the pursuit of more, consider doing less.

//

Let me know what you think on Twitter: @mmcwatters

spork

Spork Fears: Designing for Windows 8

spork

A bit to my surprise, I’ve been thoroughly enjoying designing and developing a Windows 8 tablet app. While I love iOS, there is something truly refreshing about the minimalism and griddiness of the Metro UX.

That said, there is this gnawing fear in the pit of my stomach: does this whole OS make sense? Is it trying to do too much? Can I adequately design something that will be used both on a laptop and a tablet, with a finger and a mouse, via touch and keyboard? Thinking about all of these permutations of user experience is a bit unnerving compared to the relative calm one experiences when designing for iOS.

Am I designing for a spork?

That’s why I found this article so unnerving. Sure, I’ve read plenty of anti-Windows 8 articles, but none so eloquently summed up (expressed, really) what I’ve been worried about.

Passages like this really struck a chord:

What does a Surface Tablet, a Windows 8 Tablet and a Windows 8 desktop have in common with a spork, a spife, a knork and a sporf? Everything. They compromise on everything and excel at nothing. They provide far more features but far fewer benefits. They do many things but they don’t do any things better or even as well. They’re not category defining because they’re not far better at doing any key tasks than are the already existing categories.

Sheesh. That doesn’t inspire much confidence.

Still…

The fact is, plenty of people were equally skeptical about the iPad’s prospects prior to its launch. We won’t really know if Windows 8 will fly until it’s actually in the grubby hands of consumers. Until then, I’ll keep working on our app..and ignoring that little voice in the back of my head whispering, “Spooooooork.”

//

Let me know what you think on Twitter: @mmcwatters

metro-guidelines

Guidelines Done Right: Microsoft Metro

I’m working on apps for three platforms at the moment: Apple’s iOS, Google’s Android, and Microsoft’s Metro. Because the three are similar yet different in critical ways, I’ve had to refer to the respective UX guidelines for each several times in the past few weeks.

Wihtout equivocation, and with some surprise, I can report that Microsoft’s Metro Guidelines are by far the best. They are well organized, with helpful but simple illustrations, and content that is lean and mean. Little touches, like this piece on converting an iPad app to Metro, are not only well executed, but also address a critical business need — encouraging adoption of the Metro OS — as well as a developer need.

By contrast, Android and Apple’s iOS guidelines are, frankly, messy, difficult to navigate, wordy, and lacking helpful examples.

In a future post: why I think Android and iOS should adopt (steal?) some of Metro’s excellent UX metaphors.

//

Let me know what you think on Twitter: @mmcwatters

Not a robot.

Users Are Humans

In the healthcare space, they’re called patients. In the commerce space, they’re called customers. In the professional services space, they’re called clients.

But when we’re talking about how they interact with our digital systems and products, we suddenly start calling them ‘users.’ Heck, my field is called User Experience.

But let’s think about that first word: user. Not very warm, is it? Cold, clinical, abstract, it hardly suggests a sentient being.

But users are people. They have wants and needs; they get angry, they feel joy; they have hopes and fears. In fact, there really is no ‘they,’ because they are us. We are them.

This clarification of terms is more than just a nicety: when we use a dehumanizing term for our target audience, it’s easier to do things that serve our own needs first. It’s easier to make decisions based on organizational convenience and expediency rather than the needs of those we’re supposedly serving.

The term ‘user’ has its place, don’t get me wrong. But as much as possible, we who are in the business of building digital experiences should remember that, ultimately, our goal is to serve people.

//

Let me know what you think on Twitter: @mmcwatters

bad

The UX is Broken: Here’s Why

Most of the time, a broken user experience has little to do with the design or implementation of the UX itself. Scrape the surface of even the smallest problems, and you’ll usually find:

  • A broken product
  • A broken organization
  • A broken set of priorities
  • Some combination of the above

All too often, our job as UX professionals isn’t to make something good even better. No, it’s to take something which is fundamentally broken — for the reasons noted above — and to try to hide that problem from users in the hopes of preventing further damage.

So here is a plea to companies, organizations or even individuals who want to build better user experiences: make sure your product works, your organization is aligned, and your priorities are in order before you set to work trying to improve your UX. Only then is true success possible.

//

Let me know what you think on Twitter: @mmcwatters.

Sudoku Snapshot

User Testing on the Subway

On the subway this morning, I spied a passenger playing a sudoku app on his iPhone. At the risk of disturbing him (and winding up with a broken nose), I said, “Pardon me, but I see you’re playing a sudoku app. Would you mind looking at one I’m developing for the iPad?”

“Sure!” he said. I fired up Think-Sudoku, and handed him my iPad. I showed him that, unlike other sudoku apps, mine had a unique way of entering numbers. I also explained that, unlike most other apps, mine would have an unlimited number of games.

He was excited, and asked when he could buy it. I’ll take that as a good sign. I asked how much he would pay. “I don’t know…two or three dollars?” This confirms the price point I had in my head.

There’s nothing like a little user testing. Even on the subway.

dinosaurs

Information Architecture According to Dinosaurs

“So what, exactly, do you do?” Every information architect dreads this question. Fear not, now you can just point your inquisitors to this little gem:

 

michael.jpg

What I Do

Describing what I do for a living to people unfamilar with the UX profession often elicits confused looks and/or polite head nodding. With that in mind, a few months ago I asked several UX professionals whom I admire how they describe what they do for a living.

I received some great answers, and one of my favorites came from Graham Ericksen, who wrote, “I make websites easy to use.” Alex Kirtland wrote something very similar: “If I get confused looks, I just say I’m the guy that makes websites easy to use.” (A gift of great UX professioals is succinctness.)

I’ve adopted this description, adding to it just a bit: “My job is to make websites and mobile apps useful, engaging, and easy to use.” I might also add that, “I’m responsible for making sure content, structure, and design support that goal.”

I’ve tried it out a few times recently, and people seem to get it.

Magical Weather

Magical Weather is a new weather app for the iPad, and I can already hear you asking if we needed yet another weather app. I thought the same thing, until I tried it.

The Magical Weather app

Magical Weather differentiates itself from other apps in its minimalist approach. Instead of trying to make the most of the iPad’s capacious screen real estate, it reduces key weather information to a slender but readable panel. It focuses on the details that matter most, but presents them as an elegant infographic.

You know how sometimes you want to look outside and just see the weather? The animated sky background — which is really lovely — allows you to do just that. I’m not sure how they’ve accomplished this, but in several informal tests I noted that the sky image matched very closely the sky outside. A nice touch.

The location selector screen eschews the traditional list of options for a panel of tiles, much like the iOS home screen itself. This is nice because it allows the locations screen to do triple duty: in addition to letting you add or delete locations, you can see at a glance the current weather and time of day in all of your chosen locations.

If I had one nit, it’s that the icons for things like humidity, temperature change (delta), etc. aren’t always immediately decipherable.

Magical Weather won’t replace my other weather apps. For example, there are times I want the rich depth of information provided by, say, The Weather Channel’s app. But similar to what Shine does for the iPhone, Magical Weather does for the iPad: quick, simple, non-nonsense weather reporting.

For such a minimalist app, it’s packed with a lot of great UI niceities. So, if you like weather apps, go get Magical Weather; during it’s launch, it’s being offered for just $0.99.

Follow the User

Users choose their own path

Are you trying to dictate the path your users will take through your experiences? If so, you might be making the same mistake as the urban planner who designed the right-angle-only pathway in the photo above.

As the image shows, people have decided — quite correctly — that they can get from A to B much more quickly by cutting across the grass and, in doing so, creating quite a dirty mess.

While it’s easy to label these grass tramplers as scofflaws, the truth is they are just normal human beings doing what human beings have always done: finding the quickest, easiest way through any given situation.

So, if you’re going to try to dictate a path for your users, you better be absolutely certain (with a lot of user testing) that it’s a path that makes sense for them. If you can’t do testing, then you better offer options and escape routes.

If you don’t, expect your grass to get trampled.

dining.png

A Better Restaurant Website

If you own a restaurant, chances are your website is frustrating the customers who visit it. Restaurant websites on the whole are so bad that it’s actually become a bit of a joke in the user experience community (you know, those of us who design and build websites for a living). In fact, Matthew Inman over at The Oatmeal has done a pretty bang-up job describing what he (and most people) really want (and don’t want) from a restaurant website.

Sure, it’s easy to point out the flaws, but I think it’s important to figure out why these sites are failing, and what we can do to fix them. Aside: I think the notes below apply to almost any industry, but I’ve isolated restaurant websites because they tend to be so bad.

Hire professionals

Restaurants have limited budgets, so they’re more likely to try to get their sites on the cheap. This isn’t to say that an inexpensive website is going to be a bad website, but it does increase the odds that you’re dealing with novice user experience professionals.

Your website shouldn’t be an afterthought. It’s a critical part of the experience you’re providing your customers and, because it’s often the first point of contact, it better be good. If you can, think of your website just like any other fixture in your business, and try not to skimp.

One thing you can do is find restaurants in your area that have good websites (based on the concepts I outline below) and ask the owners who did their site; sometimes the sites even have links to the web design agency. Alternatively, you can look up good but small local user experience and design firms; often they’ll take on a smaller project if it interests them, and restaurant websites can be great portfolio pieces.

Skip the ambiance

Restaurant owners (and their designers) often hope to re-create the dining experience on the website. They use Flash which requires a third-party plugin, isn’t great for mobile devices, reduces search engine optimization, and makes it harder for users to print out key information like directions or menus. They add music or other distractions that slow the website down and create a fussy, intrusive experience. They provide menus in PDF format, which takes longer to load and isn’t as easy to review in a Web browser. In short, they put form ahead of function, decoration ahead of useful information.

Believe it or not, your customers aren’t as interested in ambiance as you might think they are. They want basic information like location, hours of operation, contact information, and menus. Sure, your site should be attractive and match your brand; it should support the final experience you want your diners to have. But it’s important to remember that when people visit your website, they’re not actually in your establishment. They’re at work, at home, or on the go. Your website needs to work in those venues, not the other way around.

Preview the experience

Okay, so this might sound a little contradictory to the point I was making above, but bear with me: people visiting your website do want to know what your restaurant is like. They want to get a feel for the place, they want to know if it’s what they imagine for their date, or if it will work for their kids. In other words, they want to get a sense of the place.

One of the best ways to do this is through photography. But instead of creating giant Flash slideshows that clog the browser and slow the experience, provide a gallery that’s easy to find, with useful captions and a logical structure. And, hire a professional photographer (see my point above about hiring professionals). You might think you’re pretty handy with your iPhone camera, but a professional photographer is light years ahead of you; they will know how to shoot your space so the images are meaningful and inspiring to your customers.

Go mobile

People often make dining decisions on the fly, so it’s not surprising they’re going to be visiting your site on a mobile device. Nonethelss, very few restaurant websites are designed to work well on mobile devices. Instead of getting a simple site that loads quickly and gets them the information they need, users are presented with scrunched up websites broken up over several pages or, worse, a broken Flash plugin symbol.

But you have options: you can provide a website that degrades gracefully from its full glory on a desktop PC to a much simpler, more streamlined version on a mobile device, or you can simply provide two websites — one for desktop users and one for mobile visitors — and rely on technology that serves the appopriate website to your customers depending on what kind of device they’re using.

In either case, it’s important to remember that mobile users probably want information prioritized differently than desktop users. Whereas a desktop user might expect a more traditional experience with a home page and sub pages, mobile users might appreciate a one-page design that presents location and contact information first.

Taste before serving

Every decent chef knows you don’t send food out to your diners without doing a taste test first, and that you modify your recipes over time to suit the changing tastes of your customers. The same is true of your website: launch your site and get feedback from customers about what works and what doesn’t, then make adjustments. Over time, plan on updating, improving, and possibly redoing the site entirely. If you want your restaurant to stay fresh and current, your website needs to come along for the ride.

Check, please!

Restauranteurs are often entrepreneurs taking big risks; adding a website into the business plan can result in unwanted stress and anxiety. Nonetheless just as the best recipes are often the simplest recipes, made from basic wholesome ingredients, I believe the same is true of websites. If you’re worried about doing it right, just keep it simple: focus on the information that matters most, present it in a way that’s easy to understand, and don’t get hung up on adding seasoning that will just muddy the taste.

facebookvega.jpg

The Backlash Backlash

We all know the story: Facebook introduces a new feature or revises an existing feature, and there’s a cacophonous outcry from disgruntled users. Then, time passes, and people get used to the changes. Or they don’t, but they get by anyway.

But this time there’s a backlash backlash afoot, people who are frustrated by those who are, well, frustrated. “If you don’t like it, quit using Facebook!” “Quit complaining! It’s a free service!” “What a bunch of entitled whiners.”

Yet this backlash backlash reminds me of the 1970s, when you’d hear people say, “If you don’t like it here, move to Russia.” Really? That’s your answer to people who think something is broken? Move to Russia? Leave Facebook?

No, I think the backlash backlash misses something. Sure, Facebook is a free service, and people aren’t obligated to use it. But without users, Facebook doesn’t have a business. Yes, I’m aware that Facebook’s real customers aren’t users, but advertisers; it’s the advertisers, after all, who pay the bills. Still, without users Facebook doesn’t have eyeballs, and without eyeballs, Facebook doesn’t have advertisers. In other words, try not to piss off your users if you can help it, even if they’re not the ones directly paying your bills.

What happened this time?

Let’s take a look at this latest backlash: Facebook yet again changed the way the news feed feature works. It’s not a major change, but for many people, it’s a frustrating change. First and foremost, the change was made with little warning, violating one of the core principles of user experience: provide advance warning before you change things.

Second, the change is pretty nonsensical: why does Facebook get to decide which news items are most important to me? Isn’t that my job? This violates another rule of user experience: whenever possible and practical, let your users customize and control their experience.

Third, the change isn’t reversible or changeable. I can’t go back to the way it was, and I can’t modify the preference to suit my preference. In other words, the carpet was snapped out from under me, without warning, in a nonsensical manner, and without the option to put things right again.

The world’s smallest violin

Yes, this can certainly be filed under “problems that are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.” It’s a social networking site, after all. Nonetheless, the fact that users are so upset also speaks to the wild popularity of Facebook, the fact that users consider Facebook an indispensable part of their lives, that there really are no viable alternatives. Users love Facebook so much — they have so much invested in it — that even the smallest change can spark a firestorm of outrage.

Oh, and let’s not forget that one of the primary reasons people post on Facebook in the first place is to gripe about even the puniest of problems.

So is all this whining about a change to the news feed really such a bad thing? I think most companies would kill to have their audience as invested in their experience as Facebook does.

Therefore, before the backlash backlashers tell the complainers to metaphorically move to Russia, perhaps they should consider the alternative: a Facebook that makes arbitrary decisions, without warning, that make little sense, on an unpredictable basis. In other words, Facebook could  become the U.S. auto industry of the 70s and 80s. And who needs another Chevy Vega after all?