Differences between revisions 27 and 28
Revision 27 as of 2011-05-10 16:02:15
Size: 15319
Editor: shoobe01
Comment:
Revision 28 as of 2011-05-10 16:32:25
Size: 15333
Editor: shoobe01
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 24: Line 24:
In any case, it takes exceptional effort by individuals, and good luck to assure that intersting and consistent design emerges from the process. A revision to the process is not yet at hand, but there are procedures which do work to assist in this. In any case, it takes exceptional effort by individuals -- and a fair bit of luck -- to assure that intersting and consistent design emerges from the process. A revision to the process is not yet at hand, but there are procedures which do work to assist in this.

As discussed above, patterns are often mis-applied, and used as rote answers to problems. Or, they are specifically rejected because they are perceived as having to work like this, so stifle creativity.

While neither of these are true, the next problem with best practices is more insidious.

Avoiding the Heuristic Solution

Have you noticed how many fake-stucco stripmalls there are in the suburbs, or wondered why? Because they work well enough. There's no effort involved in deciding if the style or function matches the area, the audience or the businesses, but there's some assurance it will work enough for any locale.

Interactive design is much the same. We perform heuristic evaluations, apply patterns, copy best practices (or worse, common practice that has the current buzz) and design what I call the "heuristic solution." And very often this is fine, strictly speaking. There are no serious errors, satisfaction is within norms. But it's boring. And often only solves that specific issue, so must be completely thrown away for version 2.

This is indeed sometimes marginally acceptable. Call center portals probably work fine like this. Or trouble reporting forms, or other processes that don't need to stretch very much and don't expect a lot of attention for subsequent releases soon. But a lot of demands are (and should be) placed on interactive designers to meet the brand, to find and meet the users greater goals and to differentiate from an ocean of interactive products competing for attention.

Within the context of interactive design, even processes that are supposed to solve this -- such as strict application of user-centered deign or a reliance on use-case and scenarios -- also have the same tendencies:

  • Reactionary - Solutions are sought to specific problems, and are solved within their specific domain, instead of reconsidering the entire process.

  • Single view - ...design for one screen at a time, or one device at a time. other screens, or the same application on a device with different resolution is totally different. Worse, is that it is totally identical, but doesn't fit either the space or the method of operation...

  • First solutions - There is no incentive to find the best possible solution. As soon as a solution is found that meets the needs,

  • Rote solutions - There is no incentive to find unique, interesting or differentiable solutions, so the heuristic solution will always be used. When a client (or user needs) demand something different, there is no method to explore what this means, so any differentiation will do. This usually results in copying the latest trend, often in visual design along.

  • High-level - Insufficient detail is specified, and reasoning behind design is jargon-laden or requires a background in UX or HCI. Visual designers and developers working on the design subsequently will not understand which position or process relationships are important, so will change them to suit immediate needs, potentially ruining the overall experience.

This is not just at the level of the IA or the UX designer, but across the industry. If your company gets a (very useful) customer satisfaction survey from the leading vendors, they also perform a heuristic evaluation, and suggest ways to fix, including screenshots of competitors who have a good pattern.

This seems great, but the product owners who see this say "now there's no need to think, explore and do user research to figure out which of these three options is right." That's an actual quote I've heard lately.

In any case, it takes exceptional effort by individuals -- and a fair bit of luck -- to assure that intersting and consistent design emerges from the process. A revision to the process is not yet at hand, but there are procedures which do work to assist in this.

Validation Exercises

Ideally, before even starting the design, you have done user interviews, and gathered information from the business owners as to their needs. From this, you should have things like design objectives, business goals, user goals and so on. At various steps in design, there should be a formal process to evaluate the design against these principles. Occasionally a change will occur that requires violating the objectives or goals. If so, take the time to go back, change the goals and get signoff again. Never shortcut the process and just let "this one thing" slip.

User studies are another way to do this, but must be carefully designed to find useful answers. What improvement or success is being sought? Be careful not to fall into "faster horse" mode, and simply look for lift in differentiation, or reduction in errors, without achieving specific goals.

Studio Methods

The best ideas come from individuals, or small teams, working independently. To get the most good ideas, you need more of these teams. If you have a team of designers, start the design phase of every project by briefing the whole team and tasking them to go off and develop at least one good idea for the final interaction design.

The fidelity of this design is entirely up to individual process. Anything from paper, to technical charting, to high-fidelity wireframes is suitable.

Note that aside from

IA usually has to be done as a collaborative exercise, with one for everyone Info design is in the middle... IxD and visual/interface design are up to individual designers or studio teams...

Every Idea is Un-Worthy

When evaluating those ideas, you must remember not to downselect or upselect, and simply choose a winner. Continue to approach the design from a modular point of view, and evaluate the suitability of each element to the overall goals, and the overall process.

This means that even if everyone loves one of the design proposals best, by far, it cannot be simply accepted. It must be evaluated point by point. And each alternative design must be similarly evaluated. When a "clearly worse" design has a component that is more suitable, you must accept it, at least as input to the final design.

Yes, designers can use their innate skills and sense of design to re-integrate and to coordinate the overall design. Just because components are modular, and originally came from a variety of sources does not mean the design will look muddled and inconsistent. A coordinated interaction design and single interface or visual design is key.

Brainstorming is for Suckers

It is always good to get input from various teams, but brainstorming as generally practiced does not work. To the degree there's not much point in discussing the right way to get it to work. What works best for generating ideas is really individuals working on their own, hence the studio methods above.

But not everyone has all knowledge of the arbitrarily complex systems we work on all too much, so collaborative sessions can have great value in confirming concepts, getting input on the viability of concepts, and discovering tangential solutions already considered or in progress.

Make sure sessions are run well, in order to get useful information and not waste the time of the participants. Use collaborative techniques, and invite a representative from every facet of the business you can get ahold of. Only perform these after you have started the project. If there are no goals and objectives, develop those first (sure, with input from these same groups, but that's not a design session).

Constraints are the key. Only work within the domain, set preconditions and remind everyone that the goals and objectives define the desired end state. Use workshop techniques and moderators from the design teams to guide the discussion, and gather useful information.

Then once everyone leaves, gather the design team up and evaluate the results. Many of the same techniques used for studio evaluations are useful for the output of larger collaboration sessions. Evaluate every idea, including the clearly dumb ones; there may be a clever nugget in there that can be used.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX

...How using the patterns can lead to better design by re-use consistency. If you pick a pattern, don't just pick it for the screen you are working on, but add to your documentation as a component that anyone can use on any part of the project. Communicate this to development. Then, only one of them is built, and used over and over. Consistent UX, as well as savings on development, QA, etc.

I think perhaps a bit about resolution-independent design, and otherwise class-based design. Can take any design, assign to a few size classes, input classes, etc. and generate from that.

Using these, and following patterns exclusively will result in what I am calling the heuristic solution. Which is fine, and will pass all the checkmarks and get decent test results, but is not going to be differentiable. Which might be fine for some applications, or some parts of an OS or app, but is not so useful for interfaces that must delight, or entice users to revisit. Simply using more gestures, for example, is not automatically delightful. You have to understand the product holistically, and think tangentially about the multiple ways to approach the solution. Note also that these patterns are generally not very prescriptive. Not that they don't require certain behaviors, and prohibit others, but read closer: There are options, and not objects to be implemented but principles upon which your object has to be designed. There's lots of room create something all new, and then divine the underlying truths of the design so pattern level principles can be applied to assure it still meets basic needs and is usable.

ALSO: maybe we should explicitly talk about design at this time. Like, a discussion of NUI being easily taken a step too far. -- If so, riff off this article http://globalmoxie.com/blog/evolution-of-touchscreen-discoverability.shtml And especially this paragraph which is a nice guideline -- added after my gripes :) "I don't mean to suggest that we throw out all of our familiar buttons entirely. Light switches shall remain necessary, after all, and so shall buttons, especially where it's necessary to trigger abstract actions ("share via Twitter," for example). But it's important to recognize those devices for what they are: necessary hacks for moments when direct interaction isn't possible. Touchscreen interfaces allow that direct interaction in many more contexts. As new solutions arise, we should be open to putting our time-tested workarounds aside. When designing an interaction for touch, always ask: do I really need another button or control for this?"

User-Centric Execution

The other key problem with interactive design is actually getting it built. To me, this is the more important "gulf of execution," and the key problem across the practice.

What is needed are principles of what we can call user-centric execution. This is not yet a process, or series of fixed procedures. It is possible it may never be. But like the principles, heuristics and patterns of design, the idea should be followed and there are best practices. First, to principles.

To encourage successfully execution or implementation, UX teams should:

  • Never walk away. Always stick with the project through development, at least making yourself available for questions, rework, changes and testing. Ideally, become integrated into the team, and attend daily meetings, test planning, and so on. Plan on this from the start so your budget accounts for it.

  • Assure goals are for everyone. The business and user goals you should have developed at the beginning of the project must be translated into actual, measurable metrics. Make sure that the whole organization has these goals as their top drivers, instead of cost savings, efficiency of developers, or other internal measures. While "we're building for the end user" may not resonate, remind everyone they work for the larger company, not just their department. You may also have to push to include the analytical tools to make sure they get built, not forgotten.

  • Use object-oriented principles when discussing and delivering. The efficiencies and enforcement of consistency that componentized, object-oriented practice emphasizes in design are just as valuable to software developers and development process. Sometimes this is just called "modular re-use," or other things, as "object oriented" is a larger set of principles. But the core concept is the same. Instead of designing every detail for every state, and building by state or building hundreds of items to bolt together, a few dozen modules are built and re-used over and over in common templates.

  • Design with polymorphism. This is a subset of the previous one, but is harder for some organizations and designers to grasp, so has been broken out. If there are several variations of an on-screen module you design, make sure you express them as variations of each other so these are clear. Of course, if there is only one variant (omnimorphism) then that should be explicitly stated as well. Always keep in mind efficiency and re-use.

The last two are the most difficult to explain, so an example of this cooperative design/development effort might work better than more discussion. Among the difficulties are the assumption that simply designing like this is enough. But there are key communication and process points that must be coordinated as well.

All through the process of designing this particular eReading platform, the software development teams were in the room or around the corner. They understood, and approved of, the target state. The target, for multiple platforms, was entirely modular. The IA diagram looked like this:

Intro-eReadIA.png

Every view or state listed the elements within, and then the design specifications being built only focused on those re-usable elements, and the minimum amount of information needed to place them, and transition between states.

When the first iteration with UI came up we handed off just the wrapper, and the other few components needed to execute. Elements like this one, with multiple (polymorphic) variations of the same theme:

Intro-eReadSpec.png

And when the iteration was complete, and we all saw it demonstrated, it looked like this:

Intro-eReadCode.png

No, I didn't skip a step and it's all done. The developers bought into the target state so much they just took one of the comps built for a trade show like CES and used it as a backdrop (this was built into the display engine for the demo, so took literally zero minutes). The real components are overlaid on top. And since they are components, that carousel is not just done on this page, but on about 15 pages. And since the design document clearly expressed the polymorphism, there appear to be three different types of carousel, though in fact it's the same one with minor conditional changes.

This is a much more efficient method in which to develop, and makes everyone on the team work hand in hand at every level.

Next: Principles of Mobile Design

Successfully Designing with Patterns and Heuristics (last edited 2013-04-08 20:02:22 by shoobe01)