I read the blog by Steve Denning from RETHINK and it is obvious that either he doesn’t really understand the true purpose and value of User-Centred Design (UCD) methodology or he has never been exposed to it in its true form. With so many amateurs selling themselves as user experience (UX) experts, it is understandable.

We are UX designers not UX artists. We design for a purpose, but that does not mean that creativity is not a large part of what we do. Design via a UCD process supports creatively with freedom and low risk if implemented properly. In the context of the business objective and the users’ needs, the UCD process allows us to inject creativity into the design process with little risk of creating something that has little or no value to either the business or the customer. UCD also supports collaborative working with a multidisciplinary team, increasing the creative gene pool. UCD is user-centred, not user-led.

Why is this so? First, we are afforded a true understanding of what a business is trying to achieve via business research, establishing their objectives and goals and agreeing what success looks like. Second, we also acquire insights into the users’ context via user research. User research doesn’t just tell us what the user thinks they need (as users are not designers) it provides us with the stories that we use to not only solve the problems they are facing, but to innovate in a way that will extend the solution beyond what they could possibly imagine. All of this is done while still supporting the goals and objectives of the business.

Following on from the research phase is conceptualisation. At this point, user experience consultants are free to create and express their creativity by producing many diverse, off-the-wall, way out solutions, without restrictions. The freedom is implemented without risk. This is possible because as a result of the research stage, we will have created artefacts that that are essentially used as concept filters. These filters are used to determine which ideas will create solutions that will extend beyond usability; not just create designs to best practice or standard convention. Those artefacts include, but are not limited to, personas, scenarios, business objectives and goals, and prioritised user requirements. Also in the filter mix is foundational knowledge, as UX experts that will include understanding of human behaviour, emotion, and physical and mental limitations of users.

These filters are used to select and extend the best, most innovative solutions. This part of the process, pre-design, greatly reduces the risk of implementing a creative phase between research and design that doesn’t limit creativity but ensures the solution solves the problem and isn’t just creative for the initial wow factor.

So in reply to Steve’s assumptions about user centred design:

• User insights cannot predict future demands, but creative people can easily address this within a UCD process that includes collaboration of a multidisciplinary team.
• UCD does not stifle creatively, but by significantly lowering the risk within a design process allows creativity to flourish, but not run wild.
• The process is not user-led; it is fuelled by user insight. Users are not designers. The products that don’t benefit from the insights provided by user research are notoriously bloated by unnecessary user requirements- making them more complicated and ultimately more expensive and prone to overruns.
• User-centred (not user-led) only leads to sameness if the practitioners aren’t very good at their jobs. You should not confuse poor implementation, skill, or knowledge with what you believe is poor methodology.

Only a bad workman blames their tools. So ultimately, I agree, a user-led process cannot create innovations, but true user-centred design does.

Persuasion in design is often regarded as a subset of UX, but it goes beyond UX and the mechanics of traditional usability. In this article published by UX magazine I explain how, by applying the principles of persuasive design, you can design compelling user interactions.

Read the full article: Persuasion in Design

The speaker line-up for the recent Lightning UX mini-conference event would easily make for a major industry conference, so it’s no wonder the tickets sold out so quickly.

Sponsored by SapientNitro and Foolproof  / Flow, Lightning UX brought together eight speakers to present their thoughts on various user experience matters. The rules? Eight presenters with five minutes each. I can say for myself, and others I spoke to, that Lightning UX, January 2011 was a big success.

The talks

Boon Chew opened with the story of his life. He explained how he ended up in the UX game; starting as an aspiring comic artist in his college days, through a senior developer role, to a UX Designer. He credited Alan Cooper and his books for making him realise that building products without a clear vision of the users and their needs is simply wrong.

Second presenter, Jonathan Kahn, spoke about the importance of Content Strategy. He reminded us that it is not just about the content factors (where Information Architecture currently makes the biggest impact), but also about the ‘people’ factors, such as publishing workflows and governance.

Cennydd Bowles took to the stage afterwards with a thoughtful rant titled ‘The Dip’, and urged the user experience industry to reflect on its direction, re-gain more humility and focus on results.

Next, the importance of modularisation and the benefits of using design patterns in the design process were illustrated on an example from the automobile industry by Tyler Tate.

Harry Brignull continued the parade of inspiring ideas with a short case study about a company trying to put lipstick on a pig by hiring Search Engine Optimisation consultants to fix, what was actually, a much deeper problem the company faced due to a missing Customer Experience Strategy.

The last three talks kicked off with Alex Horstmann’s performance (a presentation is too weak a word for his captivating rhetoric). Alex drew on a few Ghost Busters metaphors and spoke about the importance of talking the business language when advocating user experience. And we agree! We are all about Sales Process Optimisation, and also know that applying User-Centred Design is good for the business. As a bonus, Alex also gave us tips on defeating the big marshmallow man!

Lucy Spence stressed the essential role of research in customer acquisition and retention initiatives. She also mentioned that sometimes it takes a brand new concept or idea to move a product forward, despite not knowing the outcomes upfront.

Finally Rory Hamilton concluded with an awesome talk using the Uncanny Valley theory from robotics science to demonstrate how to optimise customer interaction touch points in a service design lifecycle.

If you want to know more, you can have a peek at sketch notes by Lucy Spence, and short videos of Tyler’s talk and Jonathan's talk.

All in all, a rapid-fire of excellent short talk and tons of ideas to mull over and digest.

Huge thanks to Lee McIvor for organising this.