5pm - Jeff Veen - Designing the Complete User Experience

-- I am going to put the stuff from today in context. We talked about the how today, I am going to talk about the why. Why we would do this and for whom? -- JV

Hot Wired - 1994 - The folks using the web were the creators of the web, folks like you and I.
Today - 2006 - The folks using the web are the users not the creators.

((Jeff gives a very good and amusing illustration about his interactions with Maytag online customer service.))

This illustrates a big problem that a lot of websites have, which is they have the data, but they don't make it public accessible. -- My goals did not match their public accessible data --

One of Jeff's Venn diagrams...
Viability (Is there a business case for this website)
Feasibility (Is there a technology feasibility for the platform for the site and the users)
Desirability (Will I make an experience that folks will connect with the site)

Napster was a perfect example of a site with a lot of desirability, combined with technological feasibility, but the financial viability was a disaster.
Think about when these three things are in balance : The iPod. All three things come to bring together a compelling experience.

Jakob Nielsen : single handedly responsible for getting usability used now. But a man of rules. Top Ten Guidelines.

Jeff says: they are crucial when we designers know why we are using.

JV uses Quixtar site as a site that has a huge audience, but you can't tell from the public pages what it is at all. Quixtar breaks everyone of Jakob's rules.
Obeying rules without context is only the tip of the iceberg.

A Different Perspective
We have only experienced the tip of the web iceberg
We may have best practices for design, but it is too early to depend on ...

Illustrates : with cyclist Gino Bartali who won the 1939 & 1949 Tour de France, first to use more than one gear. Cycling world thought they had met the pinnacle of technology with the first gear that was changed by reaching down and manually changing the chain on the sprocket. They could not have imagined the advances in cycling technology. Same with the web.

To develop an *experience* based on the patterns inherent in your stuff toat empowers users to accomplish their goals.

Experience:
users -> stuff (in the way) -> goals

The patterns in our stuff that enables folks to get their stuff done.

This includes labeling and navigation systems that are intuitive to users.
But! Not all users have the same goals.
So, good design lets many users access all of our stuff so that they can accomplish their goals.
But this is not as easy as it sounds...
As in is it soda or pop or coke or tonic or soft drink or...

Design faces global issues...
Design faces accessibility issues...
Design suffers from jargon... (shapes is boring, let's call is WebBeans tm)

This is often driven by marketing... (baffling)
... or internal jargon creeps in.

Design suffers from politics...
Customers used to interact directly with departments... (before the web)
But that doesn't translate to the Web at all... (all the depts stayed and became silos and there is no cross fertilization)
--Organizing a web site how the company is organized does the user a diservice..-- JV

We don't even know what else is going on in the lives of the users or what they are doing.. (timed out sessions or carts is frustrating to users)

Successful design comes from two approaches...
Top Down
Interviewing / observer users
develop mental models
match goals to features

Bottom up
Inventory what you have
evaluate content and features
organize

How do we help our users? Does this change how we do design? (favorite: Hay Net, from the USDA) (fantasy: eBay : have junk? need junk?)

The Mental Model : Mind the Gaps
Collaborate and consensus with user research

Why bother with user research?
Typical Project:
Project definition
User Research
Design Iteration
Implemenation
Launch

Possible design solutions would be whittled away as you reach launch. (goes down)
Also look at the continuum with "cost to change your mind" (gets more and more expensive as you go towards launch)
Cost to change is a compelling reason to do user research before design iteration and implementation.

http://veen.com/dconstruct2006.pdf