I thought I would mention some recent interactions I have had with automated retailing as I have had a couple of experiences that I think highlight the lack of user experience consideration.
I haven’t had a physical air ticket for years. Nor have I sat in a travel agent while they tapped away and responded with a “computer says no”. I book, check in and board without needing assistance or a printer. I also get a greater sense of ownership and control of my ‘journey’. I am a real sucker for changing my seat more than once (don’t ask, we all have our foibles). The final piece in the jigsaw was the iphone screen boarding pass – that still makes me feel like I live in the future…
Compare that to a recent journey I took with my family on a train. Again, I booked using the operator website, was provided with a booking reference and told to collect my tickets at the station. I collected a total of 12 pieces of paper from the machine (for 4 people, 3 needing tickets). I had so many I cleared out the tray just in case I missed one. We then decided to treat ourselves to an upgrade to First Class, so I now had a total of 15 tickets that filled half of the table.
The tickets were checked by a machine as we entered the platform, again on the train by the ‘train manager’ twice, and finally as we left the platform in Liverpool. Each time meant me searching through a book of tickets, and passing them to my wife and children (all while carrying numerous bags).
The journey itself was lovely – space, time to read, friendly staff… but something was niggling me. Why cant my train journey be as seamless ? why haven’t they adopted more efficient (better) ticketing and customer journeys ? My cynical side thinks its because they haven’t had to – there has been no 9/11, no competitor that costs a 1/10 of the price. Necessity is the mother of innovation.
UK Supermarkets are also guilty of poor UX – at a recent shop I was presented with 8 printed vouchers for BOGOF toilet tissues and the like, a receipt telling me I had saved 8p compared to a Tesco shop and a £10 voucher for a delivery service (please don’t come back )!
Given the hugely complex back end supporting the various schemes (Tesco is a data company) I question the logic of all this unnecessary paper that fills my wallet. There are 2 issues here…
1) They need to show me clearly where they are making an effort (BOGOFs & saving) – is there no better way to share this with me than paper ???
2) The vouchers represent potential savings - they are dependent on redemption rates being so low that the lost revenue doesn’t harm earnings.
Vouchers aren’t the real issue with supermarkets though.. The inhuman voice stating “unexpected item in the bagging area” has replaced the dulcet tones of “clean up in aisle 4” by a checkout lady. I can clearly see the benefits of the system to both business and customer – the proposition of automated tills and smaller queues is clearly a compelling idea to any retailer. So where did it all go wrong ?
It is interesting as in the UK, the major retailers all have a slightly different system or at least have the same system with different variable settings. I find Sainsburys easiest to use, while Tesco and WHS almost always require a reset by the supporting staff member. Maybe I use Sainsburys more often, maybe I use it more often because it is easier…
I can understand the challenge – I don’t mean the technology. I mean us customers aren’t terribly honest or helpful most of the time. The real issue to me seems to centre around the systems ability to check what has been scanned is what is in the ‘bagging area’. This requires the system to access other forms of data (weight etc) to check authenticity. This works, but is unreliable when there is a pesky human messing about.
I can almost see the look of disgust on the engineers face when he / she will have been shown the research videos of failure mode screaming “you’re not supposed to do that !”
I understand, I really do. They are clever, amazing things that can perform almost all the tasks of a cashier, but they just don’t work well enough – or should that be the other way round ?
That they are just about good enough.
Fine - set the bar low, get to market quickly, manage the negative response and grow. That’s how its done isn’t it ? My carefully considered response is… NO.
UK retailers are some of the best in the world. They have created highly complex systems to ensure we get our fruit and veg uniformly fresh from all corners of the globe to every store in the land. THAT is impressive. Why would a retailer then step back and allow that wonder to get lost in the disappointment when the customer is actually paying – the one moment that the whole edifice was created to serve?
I am not advocating some radical redefinition of retail here (although there is scope for that). It is simply a matter of creating a richer definition of work flow – wireframing and prototyping user experiences that include the irrationality of human behaviour, or the variability of response.
This is the important bit – this variability is rarely included because it is complex to measure and can ‘dilute’ the purity of optimisation and technical developments. Yet it is the complexity that makes it valuable. If it is difficult to do, then others will find it difficult to follow, and those who do it well will have a competitive advantage. To paraphrase JFK – we need to do it because it is difficult, not because it is easy.
There is much talk about the need for innovation to stir up our moribund economies, but to what end ? Why do we need innovation ? If it is all about the money then we create things like CDO’s and other such poisonous financial tools. We need an inclusive vision, a collective goal that drives us forward...
Here’s my suggestion - We have spent years creating, establishing and building this incredible network of interconnectedness powered by accessible tools and ecosystems– now what ?
The technical challenges inherent in this development were immense and solved by people with way more brain power than I can imagine (along with a shedload of determination). But the same brains cant provide the solutions to our new challenges.
If the ‘noughties’ were the age of the geek, then I think the ‘teens’ will be the age of the UX designer. The challenge is not how, but why and to whom, and that is our collective call to action, our moon goal – to make the digital and physical worlds we inhabit more pleasant, more productive and more compelling places to exist.
Wednesday 22 February 2012
Monday 13 February 2012
Its getting very serious.
McKinsey released two white papers / articles recently, and I think they hint at a future where the creation of customer / user experiences is taken very seriously indeed.
The first – ‘using behavioural science to improve the customer experience’ (pdf download) sets out that...
“By guiding the design of customer interactions, the principles of behavioural science offer a simple, low-cost route to improved customer satisfaction."
Within a week another article titled “The Human factor in service design” looked at how the
“Focus on the human side of customer service to make it psychologically savvy, sound, and easier to scale”.
I admire McKinsey – it’s fair to say they have been more than a little successful, and their recent articles, research and models on the themes of user experience and service design show the increasing role data has to play in the creation, measurement and refinement of experiences.
What registered with me about the article was that it’s a good sign when a McKinsey article is full of what I consider to be well established practices, and reminded me that it takes a data driven approach to validate critical business decisions. (another truism.)
But what data? What can you measure, and how do you prioritise / synthesise one data stream from or with another ? I think the value of design processes and practices have been massively underestimated in the innovation process because the measurement models were too simplistic, and that the models failed to truly understand human behaviour. The processes used to form decisions are only just beginning to be truly understood, and the impact of this is perhaps best described by Alan Greenspan who said that he found a
"..flaw in the model..... the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works"
The (fundamental) flaw was that they failed to understand was human behaviour, there was irrationality in the markets, like there is irrationality in almost everything we do. (The last truism.) This has driven a new interest in behavioural economics, something we have been exploring for some time.
The challenge we face is applying the principles and models of behavioural economics to the creative process. Essentially we are running hundreds of tiny little tests to assist in the creation of the look, feel and behaviour of devices and digital platforms.
The results of our tests are maps, sketches, code, layouts, models – whatever. There are a huge number of ways to measure any form of design from MRI scans to simple card sorting exercises, but for us they either aren’t fast enough or provide little insight.
So, we have stuff that is tricky to measure and tests that are too slow or inaccurate. To get round this we use techniques like role play and empathy to inspire us. As designers we are perfectly comfortable with this approach and our assumptions, when tested, are often proved correct, but this isnt going to be good enough in the future, we are going to be inspired by a more direct form of data.
Which brings us back to the McKinsey articles. I don’t think the new models and data will be produced in experiments and tests, but in the real world.
One of the many impacts of the Internet of Things will be that we can have access to multiple macro, real time experiments running 24/7. One of the challenges we will face as a design and innovation business will be to really harness data driven design – not only how the data influences our work, but in how we structure data streams to provide better user experiences over time.
The first – ‘using behavioural science to improve the customer experience’ (pdf download) sets out that...
“By guiding the design of customer interactions, the principles of behavioural science offer a simple, low-cost route to improved customer satisfaction."
Within a week another article titled “The Human factor in service design” looked at how the
“Focus on the human side of customer service to make it psychologically savvy, sound, and easier to scale”.
I admire McKinsey – it’s fair to say they have been more than a little successful, and their recent articles, research and models on the themes of user experience and service design show the increasing role data has to play in the creation, measurement and refinement of experiences.
What registered with me about the article was that it’s a good sign when a McKinsey article is full of what I consider to be well established practices, and reminded me that it takes a data driven approach to validate critical business decisions. (another truism.)
But what data? What can you measure, and how do you prioritise / synthesise one data stream from or with another ? I think the value of design processes and practices have been massively underestimated in the innovation process because the measurement models were too simplistic, and that the models failed to truly understand human behaviour. The processes used to form decisions are only just beginning to be truly understood, and the impact of this is perhaps best described by Alan Greenspan who said that he found a
"..flaw in the model..... the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works"
The (fundamental) flaw was that they failed to understand was human behaviour, there was irrationality in the markets, like there is irrationality in almost everything we do. (The last truism.) This has driven a new interest in behavioural economics, something we have been exploring for some time.
The challenge we face is applying the principles and models of behavioural economics to the creative process. Essentially we are running hundreds of tiny little tests to assist in the creation of the look, feel and behaviour of devices and digital platforms.
The results of our tests are maps, sketches, code, layouts, models – whatever. There are a huge number of ways to measure any form of design from MRI scans to simple card sorting exercises, but for us they either aren’t fast enough or provide little insight.
So, we have stuff that is tricky to measure and tests that are too slow or inaccurate. To get round this we use techniques like role play and empathy to inspire us. As designers we are perfectly comfortable with this approach and our assumptions, when tested, are often proved correct, but this isnt going to be good enough in the future, we are going to be inspired by a more direct form of data.
Which brings us back to the McKinsey articles. I don’t think the new models and data will be produced in experiments and tests, but in the real world.
One of the many impacts of the Internet of Things will be that we can have access to multiple macro, real time experiments running 24/7. One of the challenges we will face as a design and innovation business will be to really harness data driven design – not only how the data influences our work, but in how we structure data streams to provide better user experiences over time.
Wednesday 1 February 2012
review of new .gov site (an expansion of BBC quote)
We were asked to review the new BETA .gov site by the BBC. They wanted us to cast a quick (1hr) glance at it and comment on how it improves the user experience.
I realise that the new site is the culmination of millions of hours of work. It is the ‘baby’ of its creators, so any comment I make may be seen by its creators as idiotic – that my understanding of its purpose and design are irrelevant and baseless. I accept that, but also suggest that is the exact reason why we were asked – to provide a viewpoint of the ‘average user’.
I have included the copy I provided for review to the BBC. As always, not all of what is written is published, and what is published is often not given a wider context. I accept that is what happens, but the beauty of digital is that I too now have a platform to share a fuller perspective.
Review of the new .gov site. – on Firefox, IE9, Chrome & Safari (iPhone)
The new .gov site is an improvement on the direct.gov site, but the bar wasn’t set too high in the first place… The new site initially looks quite different, with a more concise front page, but even that still doesn’t have a clear call to action. The new visual impact loses its purpose when it isn’t placed in a broader context – what is the new ‘look’ trying to do ? This is less about the experience, and more about the purpose of the site / portal. Perhaps this is unkind to the developers as its purpose will become clearer over time.
Once you have navigated away from the front page (search), it is back to business as usual – it looks like the same information architecture, but with a ‘pretty looking icon’ next to some titles, but these aren’t defined / introduced and they do not make it easier to navigate in any way.
On ‘detail’ pages there are numerous fonts used (up to 4 on some pages) – I would say this is poor planning / design, but perhaps more worryingly we’ve had anecdotal evidence that certain fonts such as Georgia are known to prove problematic to dyslexics when reading numbers. There are many uses of Georgia across the site.
The predictive search seen on the front page is nice, but is not contextualised as you progress, so the same search presents the same results wherever you are. Contextualised search should be provided here.
On mobile devices the site remains faithful to the desktop experience, but that isn’t all good news – fonts and buttons are small enough to be useless. New mobile / touch paradigms like Microsoft Metro UI show how content can be repurposed to many interaction archetypes.
Perhaps the biggest disappointment is that this should have been launched in 2007 – it is a prettier brochure, and not a space where communities can grow… The power of digital media is connectivity – linking, sharing, joining and so on. There is none here – you cant share a page, you cant discover charities, organisations, communities that exist to help and support. It is the opposite of the big society as it only offers official govt information – where are the rich, vibrant and informed communities that might help me ??
So, there you go. I was asked for an opinion, and gave it to the best of my best ability in the time provided.
I appreciate that there is so much to shout about its creation, and how it suggests a future where HM Govt are knowledgeable and confident enough to create digital platforms using the best tools and techniques (open source, collaborative, cloud based etc etc), but I do feel that it is outdated in its purpose and nature. That is not the fault of its creators, but shows how much they can hope to influence the culture(s) of Govt departments. I know this takes time – years, and countless “project wins”. Martha Lane Fox calls for revolution, so this may well be a spark that lights a fire…
I spoke to her about the need to reflect the activity and communities in the digital world at the FT Innovate conference last year. One or two days before, I had been sent a link to a Reddit forum that was simultaneously upsetting and inspiring.
The link is here, but be warned, the topic is “If you knew your child was going to be disabled, would you have had an abortion?” It is upsetting for all of the reasons you would expect, and then some. More surprisingly it is inspiring because it is filled with insight, support and experience. What struck me most was the clear sense that the decision was wider than the parents alone, that there were clear support structures provided, and where further support was needed. In short it was a policy discussion more informed and more productive than any other.
It’s this vibrancy, this sense of ownership and community that I think is the missing link between .gov and the real web (real world). They are not alone – include almost all large ‘old world’ organisations in the same category. Few have migrated to a more ‘social’ model and some are actively trying to stymie it (SOPA). The latest example of this is McDonalds who launched #McDstories on twitter. Looking for heart-warming stories of how a beef patty changed people’s lives, they were instead inundated by people sharing poor labour management or destruction of natural resources stories.
Large organisations are used to controlling the channel(s) through which they communicate. They find it difficult to ‘introduce’ themselves to conversations taking place because they never had to introduce themselves before – they had paid for a ‘spot’ and all they had to do was shout as loud as possible.
The new paradigm of social media, social innovation and social business is one that won’t be diminishing in the near future, the challenge to ‘us’ is to make sure ‘they’ make it even more social in the future.
I realise that the new site is the culmination of millions of hours of work. It is the ‘baby’ of its creators, so any comment I make may be seen by its creators as idiotic – that my understanding of its purpose and design are irrelevant and baseless. I accept that, but also suggest that is the exact reason why we were asked – to provide a viewpoint of the ‘average user’.
I have included the copy I provided for review to the BBC. As always, not all of what is written is published, and what is published is often not given a wider context. I accept that is what happens, but the beauty of digital is that I too now have a platform to share a fuller perspective.
Review of the new .gov site. – on Firefox, IE9, Chrome & Safari (iPhone)
The new .gov site is an improvement on the direct.gov site, but the bar wasn’t set too high in the first place… The new site initially looks quite different, with a more concise front page, but even that still doesn’t have a clear call to action. The new visual impact loses its purpose when it isn’t placed in a broader context – what is the new ‘look’ trying to do ? This is less about the experience, and more about the purpose of the site / portal. Perhaps this is unkind to the developers as its purpose will become clearer over time.
Once you have navigated away from the front page (search), it is back to business as usual – it looks like the same information architecture, but with a ‘pretty looking icon’ next to some titles, but these aren’t defined / introduced and they do not make it easier to navigate in any way.
On ‘detail’ pages there are numerous fonts used (up to 4 on some pages) – I would say this is poor planning / design, but perhaps more worryingly we’ve had anecdotal evidence that certain fonts such as Georgia are known to prove problematic to dyslexics when reading numbers. There are many uses of Georgia across the site.
The predictive search seen on the front page is nice, but is not contextualised as you progress, so the same search presents the same results wherever you are. Contextualised search should be provided here.
On mobile devices the site remains faithful to the desktop experience, but that isn’t all good news – fonts and buttons are small enough to be useless. New mobile / touch paradigms like Microsoft Metro UI show how content can be repurposed to many interaction archetypes.
Perhaps the biggest disappointment is that this should have been launched in 2007 – it is a prettier brochure, and not a space where communities can grow… The power of digital media is connectivity – linking, sharing, joining and so on. There is none here – you cant share a page, you cant discover charities, organisations, communities that exist to help and support. It is the opposite of the big society as it only offers official govt information – where are the rich, vibrant and informed communities that might help me ??
So, there you go. I was asked for an opinion, and gave it to the best of my best ability in the time provided.
I appreciate that there is so much to shout about its creation, and how it suggests a future where HM Govt are knowledgeable and confident enough to create digital platforms using the best tools and techniques (open source, collaborative, cloud based etc etc), but I do feel that it is outdated in its purpose and nature. That is not the fault of its creators, but shows how much they can hope to influence the culture(s) of Govt departments. I know this takes time – years, and countless “project wins”. Martha Lane Fox calls for revolution, so this may well be a spark that lights a fire…
I spoke to her about the need to reflect the activity and communities in the digital world at the FT Innovate conference last year. One or two days before, I had been sent a link to a Reddit forum that was simultaneously upsetting and inspiring.
The link is here, but be warned, the topic is “If you knew your child was going to be disabled, would you have had an abortion?” It is upsetting for all of the reasons you would expect, and then some. More surprisingly it is inspiring because it is filled with insight, support and experience. What struck me most was the clear sense that the decision was wider than the parents alone, that there were clear support structures provided, and where further support was needed. In short it was a policy discussion more informed and more productive than any other.
It’s this vibrancy, this sense of ownership and community that I think is the missing link between .gov and the real web (real world). They are not alone – include almost all large ‘old world’ organisations in the same category. Few have migrated to a more ‘social’ model and some are actively trying to stymie it (SOPA). The latest example of this is McDonalds who launched #McDstories on twitter. Looking for heart-warming stories of how a beef patty changed people’s lives, they were instead inundated by people sharing poor labour management or destruction of natural resources stories.
Large organisations are used to controlling the channel(s) through which they communicate. They find it difficult to ‘introduce’ themselves to conversations taking place because they never had to introduce themselves before – they had paid for a ‘spot’ and all they had to do was shout as loud as possible.
The new paradigm of social media, social innovation and social business is one that won’t be diminishing in the near future, the challenge to ‘us’ is to make sure ‘they’ make it even more social in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)