We need smarter implementation/interpretation of accessibility standards to deliver truly inclusive on-line content

by Ben Griffin, Principal Designer, TheAlloy

I recently received a HTML newsletter that was "…laid out in accordance with The Email Newsletter (TEN) standard for access technology users”. Great. Only, it’s wasn't inclusive, because the message it seemed to send was “It’s OK that this newsletter looks dull & ugly, because it’s designed for visually impaired people”.

Would we (or any brand) want our corporate communications to look like this? If we really believe that users with visual (or other) impairments have the same emotional needs and aspirations as anyone else, then we should strive to maintain the design language of the brand – intended to communicate specific messages and appeal to those user needs. We can’t simply discard it in the name of accessibility. This is not easy. It requires designers to take a much more intelligent approach to standard implementation (possibly to the standards themselves) that delivers usability whilst still allowing expression of brand messages beyond just “we made this accessible to visually impaired people – aren’t we great?”.

I’m not criticizing the standard outlined here – reading through it, it appears very thorough and well considered. Rather, the challenge for designers is more intelligent and inclusive implementation. Accessibility standards should be part of a broader design strategy – they are not a design strategy in themselves. The implementation below has resulted in a document that is actually very difficult to navigate/read without screen reader software!

Nokia and I are getting divorced...

by Gus Desbarats, Chairman, TheAlloy

C3, my last Nokia?

I was at a ‘mobile for seniors’ conference. I must be getting on because it all seems, to me, to be simply about avoiding the really bad usability that still all too common in the mobile world.

My new Nokia C3 is a case in point. I use an I-phone for mail and apps but my also want a small robust reliable and easy to use phone. As a phone designer I’m always on the hopeful look out for something that will actually generate enthusiasm. That hope has been more and more forlon. Nokia usually comes closest and my 6300 was one of a long series of ‘goldilocks’ just right designs. When the charging plug finally gave up the C3 seemed the closest replacement, If only.

Here are some of the changes on my ‘new and improved’ C3:

• It has more options I don’t want: like browsing the internet, slowly, in impossibly small type.
• It is now 5 fiddly touch screen clicks to silence the ringer (nice one touch camera though….)
• It took 15 minutes of menu fiddling to guess my way to the Bluetooth pairing menu. (bearing in mind I’ve been designing device interfaces of all types for 25 years..)
• It has automatic ‘cheek activated’ mute in call. (lots of fun..)

I was overseas when it prompted me to set my mobile voice mail number under the 1 ‘one touch’ key. Being clever I set the number to +44901 thinking this would work. Wrong, I should have remembered the networks have cleverly coordinated things so 901 works anywhere. OK score a point for Nokia? No, since that prompt, I’ve been unable to find anywhere, and I really mean anywhere, any option that will allow me to change the number changing of the ‘special’ 1 messages one touch key. (I can of course program the other one touches). I’ve been looking for months, rummaging the menu like some sort of digital ‘lost sock’ drawer, without any joy. I’m sure someone at nokia knows where the option is. Solution welcome!

I dropped it once and the touch screen went blank. It got repaired under warranty but I lost my holiday photo’s… My old phones have been dropped repeatedly..

I now have not one, but two entries for every phone in my phone book. I need to keep my phonebook on my sim so I can dial out from the steering wheel controls in my car. If I do that I can’t use the ‘touch screen’ tiles. When I tried to copy a few over that I ended up creating unwanted duplicates of every entry.. I’ll fix it eventually, but why can’t the tiles also accept links to sim numbers?

Ovi also comes across as a net negative on this form factor. It has made it so much harder to get ring tones that I really can’t be arsed.

I also assume that Nokias desire to channel revenue through OVI is why my C3 has no free games. Do I care enough about games to my own pull teeth through the impossibly small slow and complex experience of chosing and buying a cheap game? No. The people Nokia has disappointed are my daughters 9 and 12 who can no longer be saved from their perception of terminal boredom when stuck somewhere away from their multiscreen home IT lab.

Of by the way, I of course can’t read the screen in sunlight, and the on-screen dashboard is of course totally impossible to pick out of virtually any background. I had to spend a few minutes photographing different coloured object until I found a mid tone colour that allowed the graphics (that trivial stuff like signal, battery and ringer status..) to be legible

So in a nutshell, the company that has probably sold more phones than any other seems to have forgotten how to get the basics right. Not a great place to be given Nokia’s less than stellar performance in smartphones.

A few years ago, in the 2 years before the i-phone launched we were making the case to the industry that touch screens were the only simple way to interact with compact multifunction devices..

A few years after Apple has redirected the mobile herd, I fear it is now stampeding away from the 2/3rds of the market who still walk into stores saying ‘I just want a phone that does calls’ . It’s as if the car business in the 30’s had declared that the future is trucks…hmm if I know one thing it is that someone somewhere will see the millions to be made from simple ‘non tech’ mobile device and service propositions.

It might even be Nokia, but that hope is looking pretty forlorn. Will the C3 be my last of 7 Nokias?

Distopian Visions

Well, its been a little busy here over the summer, hence the drop in blog posts… One thing promted me to get back to this blog.

Fast Company recently tweeted a link to a video posted on YouTube by Ericsson - shown below. It aims to describe the Internet of Things in a more trendy way, as The Social Web of Things.

Essentially the video outlines a well trodden but preposterous path that technology companies use to show us in a clunky way what the future will be like.  We have seen several of these before (remember the “internet enabled fridge” that would order your groceries for you when you run out?) and this version integrates the “home” as a social networking friend, looking after your wellbeing and making decisions for you.

This excellent blog outlines some of the reasons why this video is a little creepy, and I do not want to repeat the points made.  More than anything, the video demonstrates, par excellence, exactly why this will NOT be the future of communications, and why all of the wonderful possibilities offered haven’t been as successful as they could have been – This is a case of technologists looking to apply their technology to human behaviour, and not being led by real needs and desires.

I am at a loss to understand how a global multi-billion dollar company created a video that showed how Kubricks 2001- A Space Odyssey vision of HAL has somehow been  taken as a good thing . The idea of a ‘jealous’ smart home trying to drown out the telephone call of a girlfriend is not a dream I nor anyone I know have.

Innovators need to understand more about people to balance their technical knowledge, as commercial success is not driven by technology alone, but by how it can enhance our lives. Technology is an enabler, not a solution.

This is true in almost all aspects of life.  Technological advances in cars have made us faster, more responsive, safer and more comfortable drivers.  But we are still the drivers, not passengers to a machine.  Email, social networking and mobile phones enable us to communicate more effectively, but few, if any of us, would let machines write messages for us.

The vision in the video is one that will not become reality.  Not because the technology is not available, but because it does not respect what makes us human: the ability to make decisions for ourselves.  Technology is best considered as our servant, not our master.

Keeping Connected

The second post during my current trip is all about keeping connected while I am away. – The experience of networks, connections and platforms that help me to keep in touch with the office, friends and my family. These issues and challenges have made me think about the advent of the cloud, and how it is going to require some serious innovation and investment to provide true mobility . (Ironic really, as I understand most cloud based offers seem to focus on content mobility). For me it comes down to 3 key issues – cost, connections and platforms.

Cost - For years the cost of mobile connections has limited my willingness to fully utilise my phone as the main device. I have been scared that the bill is going to be huge, and in the past it has been - (up to £600 for a 2 week trip). Apocryphal stories about accidental data downloads pushing bills into the £000’s have made me wary. This time I have got a package that will limit the cost to £100 for global roaming including data. This has ‘freed’ me to use the applications I would use at home without fear of ‘bill shock’ – an industry term that is translated as ‘ripped off’ by users. Watching CNN (as you do when in strange countries and hotel rooms) there was an interview with a CEO of network who was saying that the pricing model of data use was broken and that a fairer deal was needed for both users and networks. Yet this same model has allowed all manner of new services and content to be created, and it is the content that has driven users to their networks – are they killing the goose that laid their golden egg, are they really so hard up, or are they ‘maximising revenue’ ?

Aside from mobile, I have been accessing wifi and fixed networks in hotel rooms and lobbies. In some places this has cost £15 per day per device (up to 3 devices in my case), in others it has been free. The ones that have cost have been reliable, while the free have almost universally been patchy to unworkable – surely there is a business model somewhere in between ?

While cost may not be a core element of my experience, it does frame my expectations, a key determinant of my eventual experience. Freemium as a business model is compelling to me as a user, but when freemium means that I cannot connect, that is not a business model, it is a business failure.

Connections – I have lost count the number of times I have had to enter passwords on my or security codes to access networks. Multiple times for multiples devices. My current password in an airport lounge is 837885972 (catchy, I know)… while this may not be such a problem on a laptop or phone, it gets quite tricky on a joystick based interface on my PSP.

What has really let me down has been the quality of service and the speed of the networks. My activity, and resultant experience depends on how reliable the connection is.

Platforms – One of my key platforms for keeping touch with my family is Skype – it allows me to see as well as speak to my children (well in theory anyway) but it has been consistently poor – cut outs, poor audio quality and poor video quality. I have wanted a premium service that would guarantee a quality of service, but none seems to be available (please tell me if there is one available). I might try facetime to see if that is any better (can only hope it will be !)

Finally, I have just managed to sneakily download a BBC programme from the iPlayer through my company VPN, which made me wonder why my device or my online identity cant mark me out as a Brit so that I can access the content I pay for when overseas ?


I think the costs, connections and platforms discussed above indicate some interesting challenges and opportunities when seen through the lens of cloud based services / computing.

Firstly, the good stuff. I think it will be more likely that I will be able to download / stream BBC programmes as my storage and content access will be permament and secure (so iPlayer will know that I am a UK tax payer wherever I am in the world). To me that sounds exciting.

Yet my current ability to connect to networks, and the costs associated with that are a major barrier. The cloud will work when we have ubiquitous networks, and I don’t think we do just yet. We already can see the advent of SAAS being driven by the cloud, but I think it will go even further – where we will have devices as a service provider (DASP ??) The device being provided for free in return for a payment relating to content access (heard of that model before ?).

That still doesn’t solve the current issue of patchy networks, and I think there are some interesting opportunities for us, the users, to bridge the gaps, where we become the cloud. – Innovative services like Fon allow people to share their bandwidth in return for access to bandwidth elsewhere, and I would like to see how this model could be extended to provide greater mobility and better content access for all.

I can see some great opportunities for innovation in this area – new products, services and business models – maybe I am being naïve, maybe too optimistic ? You tell me, I would love to hear your thoughts.

Dispensing an Experience

I had intended to start my second blog off with a simple example of a poor user experience about my vacuum cleaner, but I am currently halfway through a business trip covering every time zone, 3 continents and 10 cities.

This is a wonderful analogy about the ‘journeys’ we have everyday - the numerous interactions we have with people, services, devices and cultures. So I thought I would share some of my experiences so far.

I wont bore you with all the details, but will share some of my high (and low) lights. Firstly, the interactions associated with actually getting on a plane are almost universally awful. I remember someone from Boeing saying that they conducted study of people stepping onto a plane and almost everyone was exhibiting physiological symptoms more usually associated with crime – either as a victim or perpetrator – high blood pressure, emotions, heart rate and so on.

Yet it isn’t universally bad– comparing Hong Kong airport with any airport in the USA shows that the application of well trained, well intentioned people who genuinely want to make it a pleasant experience makes a world of difference. It took me 15 minutes from deplaning to exiting the airport and in that time I was welcomed 4 times, was smiled at by cleaners and (gasp) border control.

While all that I have discussed so far hasn’t included an obvious reference to devices, environments or interfaces, they have played a key role as dispensers of my experience. The layout of the terminal and the systems supporting it from baggage to immigration control have all been carefully considered to make the journey as quick and slick as possible.

Before my flight to Hong Kong I took a train from Seattle to Vancouver. The route hugs the Pacific coast for hours on end – literally running along the beach, flanked by the most amazing forests and mountains. It is a link between 2 global cities coupled with some of the most dramatic sights I have witnessed from a train. Yet it wasn’t a great experience Why ? – because it felt like a system and service that had been geared around the route of least resistance for the workers, and didn’t understand the complex reasons why someone might choose the train over a plane or a car.

Ticketing took over 40 minutes with huge amounts of keyboard input, but no interaction with me. Once I got a ticket I took my bags over to the other side of the station to check them into the train. I then had to go to another desk to receive my seat reservation (no choice, just the seat I was given.) I wanted to sit on the ocean side, but was told there weren’t any seats. Once on board, I found that the coach I was booked into was full, but the next coach had plenty of spare seats, many ocean side. Compounding such issues was a tired train (old coaches, broken seats and smelly loos) meaning that I arrived in Vancouver less than impressed by the service.

I don’t know the exact problem here, but for a start some basic IT support and staff training would help the staff to deliver a better service. (Ironic really given that it starts from the home of Microsoft and Starbucks).

Comparing this to the Cathay Pacific flight where extra pillows, cups of tea and coffee, and a wonderful personal service (the cabin staff knew the last time I flew, where to and my preference for their signature drink) was wonderfully refreshing in every sense. This was complimented by the new business class seats that are superior to the iconic BA flatbed (my own benchmark for many years).

It is important to note that the experience of travelling from Seattle – Vancouver and from Vancouver – Hong Kong were delivered by many different businesses (design, catering, service etc). The experience is defined at a meta level by the value chain, and delivered in a consistent manner by the various parties.

Clearly, whether it is a train or plane, the experience is defined by a number of interaction factors that are both hard and soft (artefacts & people). My willingness and desire to repurchase or recommend isn’t driven by a single element, but by how each element has been designed and choreographed to deliver an excellent experience (or not).

This complexity of delivering a great user experience is reflected in consumer electronics, and it is something that many struggle to deliver because it is a new innovation challenge.

Companies whose skill and business model are based around the manufacture of devices need to recognise that the device they make is one element within the value chain – the chipset, the platform, the developer ecosystem, and the purchase experience are as important as the device itself. The device dispenses an experience.

This is something we have been delivering to BT for many years, and in some ways they were the perfect partner for this approach. They are a network, and derive income from network usage. Yet they provide a wide range of devices from telephones to routers, STB’s and even baby monitors. They recognise that the devices we design for them are the physical touchpoint for their network services, and so are vital links in their offer. (Incidentally they now hold a 50% market share in the UK).

The UX of a BT product is defined and managed by BT, but delivered by a number of suppliers all over the globe. This works as BT is a strong brand, and the suppliers are predominantly Asian ODM. Yet when a value chain includes a number of strong brands the challenges become magnified as each has a set of values, heritage, culture and innovation approach that may not always be so complimentary.

This meta UX approach is something we are doing more and more of – where various parties within a value chain collaborate to define a UX. The result is that each party has a clear understanding of what is needed, and where they need to focus their innovation efforts and dollars.

My own belief is that this is why convergence has taken so long to become a mass market reality. The technologies required have been around for a long time, what has been missing are the tools, techniques and processes required. The challenge is not a technological one, but a cultural one.

The good news is that more and more organisations from medical to social services are beginning to realise there is another way and that is why I am so excited to be part of the UX revolution.

How do you start a blog?

...I suppose the only way is like this, by putting one word in front of the other…

Weve been meaning to get this off the ground for quite some time now, as we want to share our joy, frustrations and musings on user experiences and innovation with a wider community. Yet the usual excuses have been used by me and others – we are busy, busy, busy.

When we have had the time, we’ve had to have meetings about how we use it, and what it’s for. However, my experience of social media is that the platforms provided are not prescriptive – there aren’t rules and defined information / communication flows. So the only way to test if this is valuable to us as a business is to see what interests you (dear reader) - what you want to read, and if we can start interesting dialogues and discussions.

So this initial blog is to lay out our blog narrative / dust cover of what we will be blogging about from now on. As the title suggests this is all about user experience, UX, UIX and experience led innovation. Bear with us on this I realise those titles aren’t going to make you drool with excitement..

Ive just spent two great days at the Design Management Institute Conference in Seattle where we listened, learned and debated design thinking and design doing.

The praecy of the 2 days is that we (the design community) don’t agree or have a singular concise and compelling definition about it, which clearly means that if we can’t express it, then what hope do others have in understanding what it is ?

The interesting thing is that almost every speaker showed that the title / brand doesn’t matter, the evidence does – that using the techniques we have been refining and honing for over a decade do produce results, and people do value it – call it what you want – it works.

Yet as a consultancy, that isn’t good enough – we need to help people understand what we do, and I think this blog is the perfect tool, as a pithy statement doesn’t cut it – it means different things to different people at different times, in different jobs and in different industries.

I think the best way to frame the narrative is to ask the simple question..

“Is there a problem ?”

Do we live our lives seamlessly encountering wonderful experiences that make our hearts sing and our minds boggle ? Of course not .. Can it be made better ? to paraphrase Obama – yes it can.