I've been working over the past three or four months on a methodology for measuring emotion.
It's not that I'm overly concerned at how often interfaces make people cry, it's more that pretty much everyone in this industry now recognises that 'usable' doesn't mean people will use it. I mean, we all know that a usable e-commerce site will suffer fewer dropouts and losses at the checkout due to usability issues, but that doesn't mean it will be an instant success - the prices have to be right, the product range has to suit the customer, the delivery slots have to be reasonable, the fulfillment on time, etc. Put another way, the user still needs to be 'persuaded' through the design.
Marketing has been at this for years, measuring the emotive impact of an ad or campaign. They question the consumers before and after exposure, and find how well the campaign has strengthened the core brand values. So why don't we do the same with exposure to an interface?
The answer is we can, and some of us have been doing so for years - though probably not as thoroughly or scientifically as we should. And that's what I've been trying to correct.
Some usability experts are working on a scheme of persuasion; persuasive design is a popular buzzword right now, and designs are measured to see how well they persuade customers to complete. But for my money, that's too simplistic and is more of a broadcast approach (interface broadcasting at and persuading users), whereas it should be a dialog approach (interface engaging with the user and providing the required experience - which should encourage them to repeat/complete).
The trouble is, that experience changes every time. Sometimes, as in an e-commerce site, the experience should be relatively boring and simple, although it should also entice and engage to build a relationship and dialog. At other times, the experience may deliberately confuse and frustrate, to an acceptable degree; think of a puzzle game, for example, which requires a degree of confusion and problem solving in order to deliver a satisfaction pay-off.
So the key is in understanding what the potential emotive aspects of the experience are, and then in setting goals and touch points along them. Then you can identify a way of measuring how well the experience met those goals.
I'm currently working towards a four by four grid of experiential measurement components that I am hoping will do this. If anyone else is working on something similar I'll happily share notes...!
In my view
Monday, December 8, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
The worst interface of all
I've been writing on 'poor usability' for over ten years now.
When I first created Usability by Design (a UK usability consultancy) I wrote something called the Wooden Spoon awards, in a reference to the wooden spoon they award to the worst performing sports teams in some countries. Each month we'd report on a site that we (or visitors to our site) had experienced the pain of, and would describe our pain in great detail - in the fervent hope that someone somewhere would read it, be embarrassed, and perhaps try to make amends. Once or twice, they did.
On a much more frequent basis I've reviewed and written on various sites, mobile phones and software applications, generally on behalf of clients. Some were good, some were okay, some were poor and every now and then I'd find one that should have been shot at birth.
But in all those ten years and of all the interfaces I've dealt with, the one I've been batting my head against this week is by far the worst and by far the most evil.
Imagine an interface controlled by voice - yet where almost every single word you speak seems to be misinterpreted and mistaken. You have to repeat everything you say to it multiple times before you even get a response - and you can guarantee the response you get isn't the one you expected.
There are no instructions, no help, no guidelines. Errors, when they occur, cause screaming fits and tantrums within the interface. It's expensive, incredibly so, and incompatible with almost everything else you are bound to have installed. Oh, and it comes loaded with malware too.
The interface is, of course, the teenager. I've always struggled to communicate with this one, but it's not until you evaluate the relationship in terms of good usability that you realise just how doomed - as a parent - you are.
Time to re-read 'Don't make me think'....
When I first created Usability by Design (a UK usability consultancy) I wrote something called the Wooden Spoon awards, in a reference to the wooden spoon they award to the worst performing sports teams in some countries. Each month we'd report on a site that we (or visitors to our site) had experienced the pain of, and would describe our pain in great detail - in the fervent hope that someone somewhere would read it, be embarrassed, and perhaps try to make amends. Once or twice, they did.
On a much more frequent basis I've reviewed and written on various sites, mobile phones and software applications, generally on behalf of clients. Some were good, some were okay, some were poor and every now and then I'd find one that should have been shot at birth.
But in all those ten years and of all the interfaces I've dealt with, the one I've been batting my head against this week is by far the worst and by far the most evil.
Imagine an interface controlled by voice - yet where almost every single word you speak seems to be misinterpreted and mistaken. You have to repeat everything you say to it multiple times before you even get a response - and you can guarantee the response you get isn't the one you expected.
There are no instructions, no help, no guidelines. Errors, when they occur, cause screaming fits and tantrums within the interface. It's expensive, incredibly so, and incompatible with almost everything else you are bound to have installed. Oh, and it comes loaded with malware too.
The interface is, of course, the teenager. I've always struggled to communicate with this one, but it's not until you evaluate the relationship in terms of good usability that you realise just how doomed - as a parent - you are.
Time to re-read 'Don't make me think'....
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Usability testing software
I've been working on improving the AURA testing software for some time, and recently I've been thinking of merging it with a new approach I've been working on for emotive testing.
For anyone who's not aware of the term, emotive testing - or persuasive testing, or PET (Persuasion Emotion Trust) is all about measuring the users emotive response and experience. Basically, think of it like this: Usability is about making something easy to use, but we sometimes also want to evoke certain emotional responses, or to provide certain experiences. A game, for example, could be designed to be easy and usable - but you wouldn't necessarily buy and play it.
Sometimes that emotional experience is relatively simple to envision; for example on a corporate website, you probably want to engender trust and confidence. At other times it can be quite complex; a game may want to intrigue at first, then frustrate and pleasure in equal measures until the final pay-off.
On top of this there is a brand value angle. Even on that corporate website, different corporations will have different brand values, and may want to promote some at different times and in different markets. Canon may want to promote the values of trust, stability and know-how in their investor section, but may want to come across as cutting edge and funky on their newest camera pages.
So I've been working on a methodology to try and capture and measure the emotive experience, and to help with that I'm thinking of embedding it into the AURA software I've created for user testing.
Could be interesting times ahead..!
For anyone who's not aware of the term, emotive testing - or persuasive testing, or PET (Persuasion Emotion Trust) is all about measuring the users emotive response and experience. Basically, think of it like this: Usability is about making something easy to use, but we sometimes also want to evoke certain emotional responses, or to provide certain experiences. A game, for example, could be designed to be easy and usable - but you wouldn't necessarily buy and play it.
Sometimes that emotional experience is relatively simple to envision; for example on a corporate website, you probably want to engender trust and confidence. At other times it can be quite complex; a game may want to intrigue at first, then frustrate and pleasure in equal measures until the final pay-off.
On top of this there is a brand value angle. Even on that corporate website, different corporations will have different brand values, and may want to promote some at different times and in different markets. Canon may want to promote the values of trust, stability and know-how in their investor section, but may want to come across as cutting edge and funky on their newest camera pages.
So I've been working on a methodology to try and capture and measure the emotive experience, and to help with that I'm thinking of embedding it into the AURA software I've created for user testing.
Could be interesting times ahead..!
Welcome!
Okay, I know, it's a blog.
But I figure you're not here unless you're interested in what I have to say, so that being the case I'm going to be posting information on high spots and low spots in usability and design, best (and worst) practice, and possibly some advice and guidance.
Keep watching..!
But I figure you're not here unless you're interested in what I have to say, so that being the case I'm going to be posting information on high spots and low spots in usability and design, best (and worst) practice, and possibly some advice and guidance.
Keep watching..!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)