This is the second in a series of posts about UX Camp London. The first one can be found here.

Back to the Roots: If email is the past, is Google Wave the future?

Ex-Flowster Johanna Kollmann, now doing great things at Vodafone, shared her experience of using Google Wave with a tightly-packed audience. Her main argument was that Wave is a great advance on email, offering us something much closer to natural, oral communication, but with the advantage that it can be stored and traced.

Now, there’s a discussion to be had about what constitutes “natural” communication, and whether what we consider to be natural is just the result of using technologies that we are more used to. But we didn’t manage to have that discussion on the day.

Instead, Johanna gave a demo of Wave, and then took some questions. Though much of the discussion focused on the details of the interaction design (which still seems to have a few kinks to iron out), several people said that they didn't “get” Wave. The problem seems to be that by combining the most useful features of email, instant messaging and virtual conferencing tools, Google may have created a product that, for all its advantages, confuses some people by not being immediately recognisable as one thing or another.

Ground-breaking new products can be baffling at first to people whose expectations are formed by older paradigms, but when we use them they begin to make sense, and we gradually accept them and change our behaviour accordingly (think Twitter, or for those with longer memories, the mobile phone). But on the other hand, some new products are insufficiently well-defined at the proposition level (that is, nobody can quite define what they are for), and our research shows that this inevitably has a direct negative impact on the experience of using them.

It remains to be seen which of these two possibilities applies to Google’s Wave, but I’m impatient to see which one it is.

Johanna’s Slides are on her blog, here.

London’s first UX Camp, a BarCamp-inspired unconference for the User Experience community, happened on August 22 at Gumtree’s offices in Richmond. Over the next few days I’ll be posting my rather belated reactions to some of the best sessions.

X-Ray Listening

Judy Rees, co-author of Clean Language showed us how she teaches people to listen better, using techniques developed in Cognitive Linguistics and Psychotherapy.

I won’t attempt to explain Judy’s method in detail here, as I’m not sure I can do it justice (and, ahem, because my notes aren’t that detailed), but in a nutshell it is a way of combining template questions with the respondent’s own words, to produce endlessly adaptable, open questions. So for example, a template question might be “Is there anything else about...”, onto which the questioner adds a key word or phrase used by the respondent themselves.

After a brief introduction Judy took the group through an exercise. We broke up into pairs, identified some relevant topics for investigation, and took turns at asking questions and listening to each other’s answers. First we did this spontaneously, using our own choice of words, but the second time we used Judy’s Clean Language technique to frame our questions.

The results were striking: everyone said that they felt more comfortable and more ‘listened-to’ when answering the ‘clean’ questions, compared to the spontaneous ones. On the other side, the questioners said that the ‘clean language’ made it easier to formulate the questions on the fly, and elicited more detailed, more honest answers.

At Flow, we spend a lot of time talking to people, trying to ask the right questions, and trying to listen. Most of us find that scripts are too rigid, so we use semi-structured discussion guides to keep us on the right topic, but we formulate or questions spontaneously, using a variety of ad-hoc rules and best practices to get the best results. We are always looking for the best ways to make people feel comfortable, while still getting the freshest and most honest nuggets of information from them.

This brief introduction to Clean Language showed that it is a potentially useful technique for improving both the quality of interview data and the efficiency of the interview process, all the while making respondents feel more at ease. A win-win-win scenario, if I’m not mistaken. I look forward to finding out more about this, and trying the techniques out in a real interview. I’ll let you know how it goes.

The next article in the series is here.

Last week, visiting consultant Nick Bowmast and Flow’s Karl Sabino reported back to us about a new tool they've been using, called Treejack. This is Nick’s account of what they found out:

If you want to find out how well your website navigation structure works for your customers, Treejack is a great tool for the job.

On the other hand, if you want to know why certain parts performed poorly, and what to do about it, you’ll need to get inside the head of your customer. The tools for this are your eyes and ears.

Treejack was developed in New Zealand by Optimal Workshop so has been built with a user-centered approach in mind.

It’s a tool to test the navigation structure of your website. Treejack will pinpoint the most difficult areas or items to find, based on click-trails as survey participants navigate through a prototype of your website’s structure. (the prototype is a simple “tree” of text links generated from a spreadsheet you paste in‚ it couldn’t be easier)

Treejack is a great tool, saving time and headspace, but it is no silver bullet.

You’ll get summarised and detailed outputs showing where each participant went, how directly and quickly they found set items during the survey. But it won’t tell you how much sense it made to them, or why the tricky areas were confusing.

To design a website that’s intuitive to navigate it’s essential to understand how your customers will interact with it. There is simply no substitute for observation when it comes to gathering these insights.

Teaming Treejack up with qualitative one-on-one research makes a killer double-act bringing you the best of both worlds.

Some tips for integrating Treejack into user research sessions:

• Run a warm up exercise on a generic “tree”. Clicking through a bare-bones navigation is quite abstract so this helps participants get used to the interaction style.
• Encourage participants to “think aloud” while using the prototype. When you notice them pause, they’ll be thinking. Having them vocalise their experience is the closest you’ll get to knowing what’s behind their thoughts and any indecision.
• Save your questions till after each task. Interrupting the participant mid-flow can make them change their behaviour, skewing the Treejack report. Let them click through naturally then discuss it afterwards. You’ll need to rely on your note taking here.
• Have a duplicate Treejack survey open in another tab. This way you can ask participants to re-trace their steps without affecting the Treejack results.
• Ask the participants to “rate” each task for how much sense it made to them. Treejack shows where and how they found an item, but doesn’t tell you whether this made sense to them.
• More participants, fewer tasks. As people develop a familiarity with the “tree” they will start memorising where things are, making your findings less useful.
• Use your eyes. The old adage, “it’s what they do, not what they say” is as relevant as ever here.

I’d be interested to hear about anyone else’s experiences. Go check it out at www.optimalworkshop.com/treejack.htm

(an earlier version of this article was published on http://www.userexperience.co.nz/)