Archive for the ‘Interaction Design’ Category

Who Chooses the Language in a User Interface?

Monday, November 17th, 2008

That’s the first question I tackled for UXMatters’ new “Ask the UXExpert” series.  It’s a doozy, eh?  In fact, several UXMatters columnists decided to answer it, and the editors did a wonderful job of weaving the answers together.  I think readers will find this new content offering from UXMatters very useful.

Also, the editors put together a handy, extensive list of resources.  I suggested several, including voices from content strategy.    I did not include all the articles I wrote in blantant SSP—just two in moderate SSP. ;-)   The editors added many more of my articles. I am grateful, though perhaps a bit embarrased.  The editors also included an abundance of other excellent reads.

Read the full question and answer at UXMatters: Choosing the Language in a User Interface.

Voice Interactions: Inherently Bad or Potentially Brilliant?

Friday, November 14th, 2008

Cooper has shared an interesting conversation about voice interactions. The conversation articulates some of the interaction challenges very well, especially with speech recognition.  Some in the conversation posit voice interactions are by nature flawed, implying we shouldn’t design them.  Others say the flaw lies in the implementation. I wholeheartedly agree with the latter.  Voice can be the right interaction for certain contexts.  For example, I see a brilliant future for integrating voice with mobile interfaces, where speech can enhance a small visual interface in a constrained context.

Voice interactions require good design using one of my favorite things—words. The words quite literally are the interface.  Often the people developing voice interactions do not have the grasp of language, conversational norms, tone, and so on that word lovers do.  Word lovers, here’s another opportunity to create a winning experience.  Get on those voice interactions, stat.

Announcing…threebrick

Sunday, November 9th, 2008

Warning: pack() [function.pack]: Type H: illegal hex digit in /home/leenjone/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/wp-recaptcha/recaptchalib.php on line 242

After 10 years in interactive design and communications, I have decided to join two wonderful, talented partners—Matt Sartor and Darnell Clayton—in starting an interactive design consultancy, threebrick.


Do we need another consultancy or agency?  I thought about that question for more than a year. My answer is yes, and here are a few reasons why:

We Need a Consultancy with Expertise in User Experience, Creative Design, and Emerging Technology

Many agencies and consultancies claim expertise in these three foundational areas but do not actually have it.  It’s one thing to talk about them and another to do them successfully.  My partners and I have more than 30 years of experience combined.  We also LOVE what we do!  We constantly keep up with the latest trends, techniques, and innovations.  And we have a tendency to write or present about them, which forces us to stay extra sharp.

We Need a Consultancy That Keeps Its Promises

Too many times, by several different agencies and consultancies, a casual disregard for deadlines and commitments has shocked me.  If it continues, it will damage the credibility of the entire interactive industry.  My partners and I love this industry too much to let that happen.  I also have been dismayed at how often the people selling the work do not understand what it truly entails, so they can’t offer realistic promises.  Making a responsible promise and keeping it should not be optional.  We need a consultancy that does what it says.

We Need a Consultancy That Knows When to Talk, Who Should Talk, and When to Listen

People turn to agencies and consultancies for advice, so agencies and consultancies do need to talk.  But often the people with the expertise and useful ideas do not do the talking.  Also, my partners and I understand the art of listening—to the client, to the client’s stakeholders, to the customers, to the data.  We know that it’s impossible to truly understand a problem or a need, and consequently offer the best solution, without listening.  We call our approach “conversational design.”

We Need a Consultancy That Doesn’t Cause Fires

Sound obvious?  If an agency or consultancy has ever burned you, you know this isn’t as obvious as it should be.  My partners and I understand that clients have better things to do than put out fires due to poor planning or bad execution.  With our experience, we have taken what works and what doesn’t work to develop a “fireproof” process.

We Need a Consultancy Willing to Work with Start Ups Outside Silicon Valley

The Silicon Valley is still start-up land, but there are plenty of great interactive business ideas beyond it.  We’re willing to work with new businesses that have good ideas to help bring their dreams into reality.

We Need a Consultancy That Isn’t Fat on Overhead

In these lean economic times, we think clients will want the absolute most for their money.  We think they’re  less interested in box seats at the game and more interested in high-quality deliverables that win customers over and garner business results.

Answering a Few More Questions

  • When will threebrick be available?
    We’re happy to talk now and will be ready to hit the ground running in early 2009.  We invite you to start a conversation by e-mailing us at info@threebrick.com.
  • What are your emerging technology specialties?
    Our specialties beyond the web include mobile and speech (voice user interface) technology.
  • What are some of your other specialties?
    So glad you asked!  For user experience, our specialties include the key disciplines, such as information architecture, interaction design, usability, and content strategy.  Within our creative design offering, our clean CSS / HTML prototyping and design is a specialty.  Across all of our areas—user experience, creative design, and emerging technology—our specialties include persuasion and self-service.
  • Are you going to keep blogging?
    I’ve gone back and forth on this but have decided I will absolutely keep this blog going.
  • When will the threebrick website be available?
    Our initial presence is up at www.threebrick.com. The next version, which will tell a more complete story, will be up after the holidays.

Some Acknowledgments

I want to thank some special people, in addition to Matt and Darnell, for helping make this a reality.  Kevin, Karen, Greg, Ron, Nick, Erik—I can’t thank you enough.  I also want to thank my husband, Chris, for his kind support and patience with my loooong work hours!

Service Experience Depends on Content

Monday, September 29th, 2008

I recently helped design a music mastering service from soup to nuts.  So fun!  The process reminded me that content plays a key role in the service experience.  I first became aware of this fact a few years ago at Cingular Wireless, where the human-centered design team worked on projects for all customer touchpoints—IVR, store kiosk, customer service representative, website, you name it.  Get the content wrong in or across any of those touchpoints, and the service experience implodes.  Here are a few specific reasons why well-crafted content adds business value to a service.

Content Greases the Wheels of a Long-Term Service Relationship

The business-customer relationship for a product often is short term.  The customer shops, compares, buys, and then the relationship is mostly over. With a service, the relationship often is long term. When a customer signs up for a service, whether a mobile service plan or NetFlix, she often is signing up for a period of time or certain number of uses.  If anything requires good communication, it’s a long-term relationship. ;-) The substance of this communication is largely content.

  • The business has to communicate to the customer: account status, order history and status, bill statements, special offer notifications, announcements of new benefits or features, technical support and more.
    • This content needs to be accurate, credible, reliable, easily accessible, and easily understandable.
    • If the content is not, customers will lose confidence or become confused and even angered.
  • In turn, the customer may need to communicate to the business: change in preferences, bill questions, technical questions, and more.
    • The service needs to provide a way for customers to communicate with it, plus content that helps explain or support interactions and to answer questions.
    • Again, this content needs to be credible, reliable, easily accessible, and easily understandable.

Content Adds a Personal, Differentiating Tone to the Automated Aspects of a Service

Of course, the direction of many services is automation, such as paying the service bill online.  Automation saves businesses money by being more efficient and requiring fewer employees.  Automation often is more convenient for customers, as well. The tricky part? Preserving a personal feel or tone in the service, especially for the long term.  How can you make your service seem different from your competitor’s if it is largely automated?  One way is through outstanding content that has a distinctive voice.

For the music mastering service I mentioned earlier, the president had a large hand in crafting the content’s voice.  I think it largely worked because he designed the service for someone like him. The voice seemed authentic. Also, many of the “web 2.0″ services have extremely informal and human-sounding content, which I think helps create an authentic voice.  A huge brand for many products and services that has impressively managed to keep a distinct voice is Virgin.  I look forward to seeing how voice evolves as service design grows.

Virgin's distinct voice appears even on a log in page

Virgin's unmistakable brash voice is clear even on a log in page.

More on Service Experience and Design

Psychology and Persuasive Design: A Few Concerns

Sunday, August 17th, 2008

To create an interactive experience that wins people over, we have to think about emotion and persuasion. The field of psychology deservedly takes much credit for persuasive design. B.J. Fogg’s Persuasive Technology refers to psychology more often than not. Don Norman, with degrees in engineering and psychology, explains the emotional connection with design in The Design of Everyday Things from a psychological perspective. Human Factors International, which as its name indicates stresses psychology and human factors, now offers training on designing for persuasion, emotion, and trust.

Certainly, psychology contributes much. But we need to look at more than psychology for good persuasive design. Here’s why:

  • Psychology isn’t the only field that contributes to persuasive design.
    Many fields offer theories and insights that can help us design for persuasion. For instance, rhetoric has been around longer than psychology and offers great ideas, especially for persuasive content. One of my favorite ideas is Aristotle’s emotional appeals–appealing to people through logic (logos), through our credibility (ethos), and through emotion (pathos). Today it’s hard to deny that an approach including all of those appeals usually works.

  • Researchers are usually good at research, not design solutions.
    Psychology focuses heavily on scientific research, which is great. This research helps us understand empirically what works or doesn’t work about a solution and why. But in my experience researchers are best at finding problems, observing experiments, analyzing data, and explaining what happened in an experiment. They often are not skilled at devising design solutions–at envisioning the impact of making certain changes, at coming up with creative ideas, at imagining the possibilities, at integrating several considerations into a holistic design.

  • A design solution should not be based only on general psychological principles.
    I once encountered a cognitive psychologist who tried to convince clients they could “manipulate online behavior” to whatever they wanted using research-based psychological principles alone. Aside from my problems with viewing design as manipulation, I had problems with the way the psychological principles were touted. The principles included positive reinforcement supported by examples such as a video clip of Twiggy, the waterskiing squirrel. (The squirrel learned to waterski by getting treats, or positive reinforcement.) People are more sophisticated than animals or subjects in a Pavlovian experiment. Persuasive designs need to respect that sophistication.

    Positive reinforcement helped Twiggy learn to waterski.

    The psychological principle of positive reinforcement helped Twiggy learn to waterski. Persuasive design for people should consider much more than positive reinforcement.

The answer? I think a winning start is to

  • Recognize the contribution of other fields such as communication, rhetoric, argumentation, industrial design, graphic design, sociology, and more to the persuasion and emotion factors in design. (I try to bring attention to the value of several of these fields through this blog.)
  • Look to those other fields in addition to psychology for help with ideas for persuasive design.
  • Look to psychology for help with empirical evaluation of persuasive designs–in other words, conducting the tests and analysis to see whether a persuasive design is getting the results you want and why.

Making the Most of Interactive Content

Tuesday, August 5th, 2008

For people like me, who care about content, it’s an exciting time. We now have more and better interactive options for presenting the right content, in the right place, in the right amount, at the right time. Interactive content can indeed be winning content. The trick is to make sure your content stays usable and persuasive.

In my latest column for UXMatters, I present some considerations and examples for making the most of interactive content.