“They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong.” Ronald Reagan

Behind the scenes, today’s products and services are very complex. As consumers demand ever improving customer service and more advanced functionality the complexity only increases. The challenge for design teams grows and companies struggle to create the increasingly important illusion of simplicity.

Complexity presents itself in many forms:

1.       Technology e.g. multiplatform, new technologies and platforms

2.       Legal e.g. FSA regulations, EU Directives, data protection, accessibility

3.       Stakeholder e.g. multiple teams, differing objectives

4.       User e.g. context of use, user needs, expectations and abilities

5.       Content e.g. quantity of data, specialist data

6.       Interaction e.g. balance between intuition, learnability and control.

As designers, we know it’s our job to help bring design projects through this complexity. I’m reminded of a great quote (by whom I don’t know):

“Sometimes God calms the storm, sometimes He calms the sailor“.

It’s the designer’s role to do a bit of both. We work in a highly collaborative way to calm ‘the sailor’ and make sure the team is able to make informed decisions. We also work in a user-centred way which enables us to calm ‘the storm’ by designing content and interactions appropriate to the user and the commercial context.

Sometimes interfaces we design are beautiful, some are purely functional some are invisible. We challenge ourselves to deal with complexity so that the end users don’t have to.

That’s great design.

(Thanks to Lenny for use of his image  http://www.flickr.com/photos/lenny_meriel/3587338182/in/set-72157608595536634 )

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.

A typical newspaper article View large, or large without the overlays

When we look at a typical webpage, the amount of space supporting the reading task is incredibly small.

What is all the rest of the space used for then? Navigation (in yellow), promotion for other sections of the website (in orange), and ads (often animated) for things that have nothing to do with the article (in red).

They each have very different purposes. Ads are here for the understandable reason that they bring in money and often represent the main source of income for online publications. Promotions for other sections of the website try to get me to read more content on the site, which would make me load another page containing ads, earning the site even more money. Some sites take it to the extreme and split even short articles into multiple pages.

Next is the navigation, which is here to help me move to other articles or sections of the site. However, at this point, thank you very much, I am still trying to read my article, and I haven’t finished yet.

Navigation, internal promotion, and external ads. None of these help me read my article. Which, as you remember, is what I am actually trying to do.

Readability

Several months ago, I was shown Readability , an “experiment” from some folks called Arc90. Once set up, a single click could reformat almost any article on the web into an easy-to-read and clutter-free page, only showing content. Even better, I could once again assess how long the article was, and how much I had already read, by looking at the relative size and position of my scrollbar. This was a breath of fresh air, and I have been using it continuously ever since (together with Instapaper for reading later on the go).

Safari Reader

The same page in Safari Reader See large

Recently, Apple released the 5th version of their Safari browser. It includes a feature they call Reader, which:

“removes annoying ads and other visual distractions from online articles. So you get the whole story and nothing but the story” (from Apple’s Safari page)

Apple has used Readability’s (open source) code to build this feature and, on top of what Readability does, Safari Reader adds some nice touches: a smoother look, automatically loading multipage content at once, nice animated transitions and overlaid buttons that help the reading user (to print, change the font size, or send by email).

What Safari Reader has introduced is simply a reading mode for the web: when you enter it you get the best experience for reading, but to do anything else, you need to exit that mode.

By using a mode, Safari can focus on supporting a single task at a time, which enables it to improve the quality of the experience.

Reception

While Arc90’s little experiment did not create many waves, Apple promoting the same idea was bound to be noticed and reactions were sometimes slightly hyperbolic:

“Apple has essentially destroyed the web publishing model completely with the release of Safari 5. This is the equivalent of dropping a nuclear bomb on the entire web economy” Jim Lynch

The reasoning being that the Reader feature would block ads. This is quite exaggerated since this feature requires the page to be loaded and the ads to be displayed before I can activate it, but there is some truth to it. It probably doesn’t bother Apple that this might slightly reduce Google’s income from online advertisement, given their competition in the mobile space.

However, Safari’s Reader mode needs to be manually activated every single time, requiring me to make extra effort, which I probably  won’t, unless I am forced to by poor page design or an unreasonable number of ads.

Conclusion

The mere existence of this feature is a sign that the reading experience on the web is often not satisfactory. By failing to recognise the main need of the reading user or by letting other considerations trample this need, publishers shoot themselves in the foot and are driving their users to bypass their primary income source.

As Lukas Mathis puts it:

“If your users are using a third-party product to make your product usable, you are doing something wrong”

I look forward to the day where websites are better designed and I won’t have to use any of these band-aids to enjoy reading long online articles. Until then, I’ll happily continue to use Safari Reader, Readability and Instapaper.

For more on the subject:

Arc 90's Readability (bookmarklet that works in every browser)

Apple: What’s new in Safari 5

Nik Fletcher: On this Safari 5 Reader Hysteria

Lukas Mathis: Safari Reader

Jim Lynch: Safari Reader: Apple’s Weapon of Mass Destruction

Daring Fireball: No, Safari Reader Is Not the Beginning of an ‘Arms Race’

The Guardian: How Apple's new ad-blocker could save the media (maybe)

Ars Technica: Apple's "evil/genius" plan to punk the Web and gild the iPad

Flow frequently uses ethnographic research methods to gain a deep understanding of the social and working lives of people who use different products and services in different contexts. The findings provide richer insights into service and product design requirements and opportunities for innovation, particularly when designing for global and multi-cultural audiences.

One of the key questions around ethnographic research is how its findings are transformed into design. One example of such a process was presented at a recent UX Brighton: ‘A Journey from Ethnography to Design’. The event included two speakers: Simon Johnson, User Experience Consultant at Flow and Miles Rochford from Nokia. Simon spoke about the ethnographic research and subsequent design that he completed for the Environment Agency. Miles’ presentation focused on using ethnography to design products for emerging markets.

The Environment Agency commissioned Flow to conduct contextual research and subsequently design an interactive map that will provide users with coastal erosion information – a national project that will affect 2.1 million houses on the coast. The key objectives were to establish what an erosion map should look like, how it should work and what sort of information should accompany the map.

Claire Mitchell, Flow’s Principal Consultant on the project and Simon started the project with a research phase that included ethnographic field observations in two coastal settings: Norfolk and Hastings. Simon spent two weeks documenting the lives of coastal communities, interviewing local people and immersing himself in their lives. Additionally, Simon interviewed eight professionals at Flow’s experience labs in London.

Ethnography enabled Simon to apply his empathy and humanistic values to drive the project. It was clear that his findings provided the Environment Agency with a rich understanding of the concerns, information needs and myths that people who live in rural coastal communities might have. Simon described how his research findings confirmed some of EA's current thinking, provided new insights and defined the subsequent design process and deliverables.

The research that Claire and Simon conducted described how emotive the coastline is, an institution in British history that invokes strong feelings and forms a strong part of a shared heritage. The implications were the need for the Environment Agency to communicate that it cares and to reassure people that action was being taken to protect the coast. It was also clear that people trust locals and distrust central government, erosion maps caused alarm and that a certain amount of local knowledge derived from  ignorance and/or myth. An example of a myth was the commonly repeated argument that the government was making money dredging ‘their’ sand.

The design approach focused on a simple website that addresses the needs of both professionals and locals. Claire and Simon decided that the design should answer core questions and myths, stick to plain English, use local materials and represent risks  without alarming local people.

Is it Ethnography?
After the presentation the audience participated in a lively debate, which had a particular focus on the true meaning of ethnography. For some designers ethnography was a new concept and their reactions during the Q&A sessions and after the presentations indicated that they found both Simon and Miles’ presentations truly thought provoking. Some felt that rapid ethnography with a specific structure and design agenda was different from “ethnography” and needed a new term associated to it.

Theoretical research has two main aims – the validation of existing knowledge and the acquisition of new knowledge. Flow uses research to acquire and validate specific knowledge, the context in which services and products are used.  Flow uses principles and techniques taken from social sciences such as sociology, anthropology and psychology to inform design decisions. Our main aim is to design solutions that work outside of design studios, laboratories and meeting rooms. As a result, we often use appropriate research techniques to focus on specifically targeted contexts and activities. A term that is often used to describe this work is Design Ethnography.

Simon's presentation

_____________
Many thanks to Danny Hope and former Flow Consultant Harry Brignull for organising the event.

--Ofer Deshe

• Play/Pause
• Next Song/Fast Forward
• Previous Song/Fast Reverse
• Volume adjustment

On the back was a three-position switch to play music in order, or shuffled or to turn off the unit.

The second generation was just as simple as the first, but had more storage and less than half the size.

On 11 March, 2009 Apple released the third-generation Shuffle.

One of the key design decisions was to simply not have any buttons, apart from a button that switches between 'Off', 'Random' and 'Order'. All controls are now part of the earphones.

According to Apple:

The new iPod shuffle is amazingly small and even easier to use.

But is it easy to use?

Soon after the launch, forums, social media networks and blogs started to criticise the new Shuffle. Whilst some disliked being dependent on using Apple's earphones, others criticised the new interface. Physically, the control could be difficult to grab during sporting activities or for those with bigger hands, but more importantly, most of the functions are controlled via a central button that has no labels.

The lack of visual display raises a design challenge. Unfortunately, touch is a less accurate sensory mode than vision and typically slows users down. Apple could have designed an interface with elements that could have been recognised through tactile attributes such as feedback, resistance, size, weight, and/or texture. The father and grandfather of the current Shuffle are good examples of such a control. However, the solution was to include VoiceOver technology, a feature that speaks 14 languages and plays back track and playlist names. Although a minor issue, VoiceOver struggles with pronunciation. Perhaps in the future, additional language information will be included with each track.

One button, nine commands

Apple was once famous for the one-button mouse. Although historically some suggest that this decision was based on cost, it was often argued that one button is all you needed. The one button became a symbol of simplicity. In contrast, the new iPod Shuffle has a central button that accepts many user commands. In fact, this 'one button' handles 9 inputs:

1. click
2. click & hold
3. double-click & hold
4. triple-click & hold
5. triple-click and hold within 6 seconds
6. triple-click and hold after 6 seconds
7. click until a tone is played
8. click until you hear a name
9. click & hold until exit

There is no direct cognitive mapping between users' goals and the required actions. For example, why does 'double-click and hold' fast-forward a track, but 'triple-click' rewind? Moving to the next track is achieved by double-clicking. So how do you expect to move to the previous track? Did someone at the back just say "triple-click within 6 seconds of the track starting"? Correct.

 Poor learnability?

Ultimately, if the device is used frequently, many users will move from being novices to experts. However, if learnability is poor, some users will remain perpetually intermediate and potentially frustrated.

Learnability is inherent in interface features that allow novice users to understand how to use a device and how to attain optimal (level of) performance. Learnability is based on five main factors:

• Predictability: operation visibility - what elements of a user's knowledge from past interactions with this device can help to determine the outcomes of future interactions?
• Familiarity: guessability - to what extent can users' knowledge from other systems and real world objects could be applied to interactions with the device?
• Synthesisability: how does the interface help a user to asses the effect of past actions on the current state?
• Consistency: likeness in behaviour. In this context consistency is related to user inputs and the subsequent output responses.
• Generalisability: support for the user to extend their knowledge to other applications and devices.

In the case of the Shuffle, lack of visual display could slow down skills acquisition. The design is not based on familiar metaphors, and poor learnability may increase cognitive load. Many users will not be familiar with the Shuffle's interface, apart from iPhone users who use a similar earphone-based controller.

As a robust device consistency between actions and auditory feedback that arises as a consequence will be high and usage is likely to be frequent. Therefore, for many users learnability will eventually take place. It is possible that Apple plans to extend this interaction model to other devices. For those who mastered this control acquiring this skill will become generalisable and useful.

Does it matter?

So it might be difficult to learn. Arguably, it has beautiful industrial design, long battery life and impressive storage capacity. Apple could sell many of these fashion accessories to users who would simply click to play whilst sitting on the train, running, or going to the gym.

The best way to gain an in-depth insight would be to test the Shuffle with users. In the next few weeks we are planning to evaluate the Shuffle in one of Flow's experience laboratories and analyse its performance and user experience.

- Ofer Deshe, Principal User Experience Consultant

Thanks to Thibault Baradat-Bujoli for the original illustrations