The image shows how the design of mobile devices has changed, in the time since the iPhone arrived and changed users’ expectations.

Aside from the fact that the comparison is far from scientific (screens on the right are blacked out, amplifying the uniformity; more monochrome designs have been selected on the right, versus a more colourful selection to the left), it does raise an interesting point. Why has mobile/phone designs converged as much as they have, in a relatively short period of time?

Not a level playing field

I think the comparison is actually a little unfair. I can’t help but think that the phone designers 5-10 years ago would have killed for the ability to put a large, hi-res, full-colour screen into their device.

It’s what the user now demands, and is a far more usable interface than the 1.5 x 1 inch screens of old. But having such a large screen greatly reduced the space for industrial design — especially when a touch-screen interface is added, and keys & keyboards are removed. (The usability of touch interfaces versus key-based interaction is questionable however, and the ‘gold rush’ we have seem into this technology may be where the true influence of the iPhone lies.)

Large, beautiful touchscreens are now cheap to create, and handset manufacturers have embraced them as quickly as consumers have flocked to them. But the technologies for manufacturers to experiment with (and more importantly perhaps, differentiate with) have not yet reached maturity: technologies such as bendable, wearable displays, super-high performance batteries, and next-generation haptic feedback.

Software as hardware

While devices may seem increasingly similar in design, another factor is at play: optimisation. To enable a usable, pleasurable experience with a full-width, hi-res touchscreen, the handset needs to be ergonomic, neither too large nor small; buttons, receivers and microphones are centralised, for balance and ambidextrous-ness; and cameras (front and back) are placed to minimise frustration and maximise usability. The experience today is all about the interaction, and the main job of the hardware is simple… Get out of the way.

In the same way that good design is invisible, good handset design is increasingly friction-free for the user. This has given rise to the main differentiating factor for devices today: Software.

Hardware capabilities today are such that even the most demanding 3-D user experience is jitter-free, and multi-application devices are the norm. Software is the battleground where companies wage war, each clamouring (to every designers’ glee) to make interfaces more usable, desirable and empowering than the next.

So, while devices are not as exciting to look at as 5 or 10 years ago, we are far more capable with a modern device in our hands. And ultimately, these devices are now tools; and tools don’t vary as much in design as they do in application.

The second half of 2011 was an interesting one for me: as well as starting a new job, I became a dad for the first time! So, writing on this blog was buried underneath a pile of Important Things To Do. However, the fog of change is lifting, and I’m hoping to be able to find more time to post here again. So, Happy New Year, one and all — and here’s to writing once more.

Keeping up

With the web development industry still so young, and the community so vibrant, we are part of today’s most dynamic and fast-changing medium. To keep up with the pace of change, and to disseminate the knowledge across the community, we have gravitated to tools such as blogs, message boards and Twitter.

However in our eagerness for efficiency (and love of consolidation) I see more and more content creators using micro-blogging services such as Twitter, instead of traditional blogs & RSS, to share knowledge and wisdom: a practise I see as a step backward, and one that could shallow the knowledge pool (and risks mixing discussion with soundbites).

Uncorking the barrels

The internet, in its guise of a knowledge-sharing medium, is busily working at revolutionising our way of life: from communication, to learning, to governance. This revolution is about information, about uncorking the great barrels of knowledge around the world, and enabling each and every mouth to drink from the source.

But our thirst for information has a limit. Indeed, some proclaim that we’ve already passed ‘peak information’: the point past which the resources available exceed our capacity to absorb, and we become ever-more selective about what we take in. Today, we are blind to much of the information presented to us.

Naturally, a huge number of tools now exist to enable you to filter ‘your’ web: select your sources, and they do the rest. While their purpose may vary (research, or social networking for example), their raison d’etre is to abstract and filter the internet into a digestible form.

RSS

RSS is the medium that allows tools such as Google Reader, NetVibes et al. to achieve this. A very useful format, it allows content to be packaged into a standardised and easily consumable form.

But RSS has always suffered from an image problem, with many people left confused by the steps involved in getting content — and more importantly, precisely why packaging up website content into an email-like (yet data-driven) format would be a good thing.

Twitter

Twitter, however, suffers from no such complexity. But as a medium, it is a strange beast in this world of information.

On one hand it allows you to find consensus, opinion and news more quickly than ever before. However, by its very design it is a noisy medium (it can feel like pointing a fire-hose at your face to get a drink ). Follow 50 people, and your stream gives you a bar-full of people — and a Superman-like ability to hear each and every conversation, simultaneously.

This is fantastic for stimulate conversation, but highlights why the current trend  – of using the platform as the sole means of sharing knowledge — is a concern. Twitter is not a knowledge-gathering medium by default, and attempts to use it as such can lead to a serious case of FOMO.

Filters, lists, and numerous tools exist to manage the stream, but ultimately the onus is put on the author to filter output appropriate to their perceived audience… and on the reader to tend to their subscriptions, weeding out over-active or irrelevant feeds.

Am I missing the point?

I use Twitter to keep up with emerging tech & trends; share content; and take part in discussions. My Twitter use is mostly in a professional capacity — but Twitter is social, and many find a mix of personal & professional use more suitable. With no built-in tools to flag tweets with a content type, following someone for only one thread of their weave can only increase the mental load. (Hashtags could achieve this, perhaps, but would require agreement and standardisation by users.)

What to do

I’m not advocating the abandonment of Twitter: far from it. Twitter stimulates discussion, levels the playing field and gives us direct contact with the leading voices in our industry.

But not all discussions are best held on Twitter, and I wonder if the recent increase in public spats in the industry is partly due to the enforced brevity & immediacy that Twitter brings.

By stepping away from RSS, and the additional levels of thought and re-evaluation that long-form blogging encourages, we ask users to both read more lightly, and consume at the speed of Twitter.

However, these devices are fast becoming this generation’s ‘unremarkable’ (the television, and the telephone before it, suffered the same curious fate): they are becoming so ubiquitous, so woven into our daily lives, and such an effective extension of our natural behaviour that they are no longer items of wonder. They merely work as we expect them to and frustrate us greatly when they don’t.

Clearly, smartphones are more all-encompassing than any technology we have ever know (enveloping, as they do, both television and telephone) – but such is the pace of our technological advancement. Convergence is a key theme of our technological progress, and smartphones are among the most personal of all our endeavours, and as such engender strong emotions.

By way of reminding us of the power we idly flick between our fingers in thoughtful moments (or is that just me?), I’ve compiled a list of all the tools available on smartphones today (that I can think of):

• Telephone
• Texting
• Address book
• Music player
• Radio
• Calculator
• Calendar
• Book
• Voice recorder
• Camera
• Video camera
• Clock
• Alarm clock
• Games console
• Notepad
• Map
• Compass
• Spirit level
• Altimeter
• Satellite navigation
• Stop-watch
• Movie player
• Instant messaging
• Email
• Internet access
• Barcode scanner
• Video chat (P2P)
• Torch
• TV remote
• Paperweight

(Let me know if I’ve missed anything…)

A fair number of the items on the list did not exist 20 years ago–at least, in their modern form. However it’s remarkable to think of how many different physical objects can (and are) being replaced by smartphones: calendars, compact cameras, watches and notepads being the most noticeable so far.

How much more?

Guessing the future of technology is a fools’ game (especially one so competitive and rapid as mobile devices), but there are technologies being implemented today that, in 5 years time, could be on the list above:

• Projector: The technology for this is maturing rapidly, but I’m not sure it will ever have mass-market appeal. In business circles though, this could be vital.
• Payment technology: NFC (near-field communication) has been added to the latest Google Android phones, and as such Google has attempted to standardise the technology. This may take a few years to get momentum–much relies on the banks themselves–but if and when it does, it will be hugely popular.
• 3D screen: Perhaps a gimmick, but watching a film in glasses-less 3D on your smartphone would be a big selling point.

When enough is enough

I think that the next 5 to 10 years will not be about how many more tools we can shoe-horn into our devices, but instead about how we interact with them. Natural gestures, for example, are just one control mechanism being explored today. Also on the horizon are screens that you can feel…

It seems today that mobile phone manufacturers can be judged to succeed or fail based on the usability, flexibility and (to an extent) the interoperability of their operating systems. While this is a symptom of the volatility of the market at large, it also indicates that users have now seen how usable–even enjoyable–a good mobile OS can be, and are factoring it into their decision of which device to get. This is simply another sign of the next technology shift: a move from statistics to experience.

I’ve kept the bullet-point nature of my original notes, but have tried to expand upon the wording as I understood it. If I’ve missed anything, or you think that I’ve misinterpreted a concept, please let me know.

The Mechanical Revolution (Inayaili de León)

• Abstraction and mechanisation are changing the way we build websites
• Coding principles like ‘Don’t repeat yourself’ are not present in CSS
• Changes we’re seeing are like the difference between mechanised and hand-made: similar battles were fought during the Industrial Revolution
• We add artistry & passion to our CSS to fend off and combat the possibility of machines being better than us.
• Tools to tackling the problem:
• OOCSS: trying to remove complexity, and bring modularity to CSS
  • Structural styles separate from appearance
  • Perhaps less semantic, but more extensible and maintainable
• Frameworks, libraries and tools can be incredibly useful — but context is key when selecting tools
• Frameworks don’t have to be off the shelf: can be home-brew in nature, but should be appropriate & relevant to the project
• SASS/LESS: CSS pre-processors. Delegation of code organisation and framing to machines
• Steps we need to take:
• Developers are better today at knowing when to use machines, and when not
• Work smarter, not harder; combine design and mechanisation (i.e. don’t design every single step in the process)
• Know when to step back and let machines take over — embrace this possibility
• Use intelligence, and assess tools without prejudice, pride or emotion
• Be in control of our future by embracing these tools
• The Bauhaus did this: learn & understand the tools of mechanisation, and integrate them into the process of creation
• Book: “Pro CSS for high-traffic websites” (Amazon)

Designing for humans (Mike Kus)

• ‘The duplicated web’: a lot of replication exists in web design
• There’s no limit to what can be done – so why are so many sites so similar?
• Aesthetics are not equivalent to decoration
• Humans make emotional judgements based on visual experience
• To best manage user expectation, and control user experience, design a complete, consistent experience. Consider each element of your design
  • Use these elements appropriately, and justify your decisions
• Leading by example:
• Apple: they make computers beautiful and desirable.
  • Bauhaus did the same: grasped tools, and used them to further their own goals
• Starbucks also understand power of visual design in crafting and controlling experiences
• A website is an extension of your brand; bring your offline attributes online, create familiarity, and strengthen bonds
• Don’t confuse clarity of information with getting your message across.
• People will make assumptions based on visuals: use this power, but be aware of it
• Style vs. Design: no compromise necessary?
  • Hard to combine function and style 100%: this represents one of the biggest challenges in web design
  • Appropriate design is key
  • Successful combination = successful site.
• Things to think about:
• Combine visual design and function design for great UX
• Invest in creativity
• Back up with logic
• Ensure strong functionality at your product’s core

Designing to where the web will be (Faruk Ateş)

• 3 key principles to achieve this goal:
  • History: learn how we got to where we are today
  • Emerging technology: understand and use it today
  • Free your mind
• Design is the application of deep thought, consideration, rationale and taste to what you are creating
• You’re a designer by definition if you crystallise an idea into a form;
• Developers take form and turn it into a product.
• History of web design:
  • 1990: Print Designer -> Printer
  • 1995: Web Designer -> Developer
  • 2000: Web Standards: The web is unique!
  • 2005: Standards are modern, design process is dated
  • 2010: Great web designers are fluent in HTML & CSS
• Lots of new technologies are now emerging; new powers and new tools
  • Abstraction of complexity: know the capability of tools
  • Design for these capabilities
• Every web technology you want to build websites with tomorrow, you should be using today.
• Platforms and user tools get more capable, not less:
  • Use data to make rounded assessments, but remember that the market share for older and less capable browsers is permanently shrinking
  • Look at capabilities – browsers as a concept are irrelevant
• Perspective and objectivity is vital in successful development.
• Focus your work on making content extensible, flexible and accessible
• Tailor your work to your audience: consider a graded experience (the web has done this since the beginning.)
• Concept of a ‘single vision’ on the web is ultimately limiting.

Visualising Data (Brian Suda)

The focus of Brian’s talk was on how data is represented today, in all its multifarious forms — and how less is often more. Decreasing the visual density of data representations (primarily, decreasing the amount of ‘ink’ used to decorate, de-mark and label the graph/chart) is an excellent exercise; it not only forces you to focus on the most important data, but also clarifies the overall message.

The optimum result of this would be a data-to-ink ratio of 1:1, but this is incredibly difficult (if not practically impossible), but should always remain the goal. He also addresses the related issue of the portability of data visualisations: first and foremost, issues relating to colour (Kindle/e-reader displays & colour blindness). He recommended looking at colour intensity (which does transfer to black & white displays), but also to be aware of different kinds and levels of colour blindness.

Brian then highlighted a topic he’s very passionate about: deterministic design. This is the practise of using data to generate imagery. An excellent example of this today is MIT Media Labs; their logo is generated algorithmically, within defined parameters. He explored a number of uses for this, from generating real-life objects based on digital-life parameters – to analysing and organising magazine covers by the colours used in their design. Finally, he made a small but significant point to remember when creating data visualisations: tell one story, and only one story.

The slides from Brian’s talk on Slideshare.

One Web (Jeremy Keith)

• The browser is an ‘unknown constraint’
• Read ‘A Dao Of Web Design’, by John Allsopp, if you haven’t already: seminal article that defines our medium
• The name ‘mobile web’ is a misnomer, and it limits us
• There is only one web; we never had controls over all the variables
• Responsive Web Design (the movement pioneered by Ethan Marcotte)
• Mentality of approach is key:
  • ‘Responsible responsive web design’ – not just media queries
  • Start small first: mobile?
  • Or… is print more root-level than mobile? Fundamental point is this: content comes first.
• Divorce layout from content: begin with components, not grid.
• Proposal for a layout-agnostic approach:
  • Modules & typography in their own stylesheet (global.css, for example)
  • All layout styles in separate stylesheet, which is delivered via media queries.
  • Set layout width in em’s, not pixels
  • Media queries can do more: e.g. filter for IE Mobile
  • Consider serving basic site to IE6, and use IE conditionals to help
  • Alternatively, use Respond.js to help IE < 9 (which don’t support Media Queries)
• ‘Design from content out, not canvas in‘ (Mark Bolton)
• Assuming user context by device is dangerous, and arrogant
• The Mobile Context (Mark Kirby) – Don’t design by mind-reading
• ‘My website will meet you wherever you are’ (Trent Walton)
• In Summary:
  • Rethink your approach.
  • Give up control.
  • Think in proportions, not pixels.

The Unintuitive Nature of Creating Intuitive Designs (Jared Spool)

• Intuitive design is when the user is focussed on their objectives
• Intuitive design is invisible
• An intuitive design is personal. Good design feels custom
• Design for the ‘knowledge gap’: the gap between users current & target knowledge
• An intuitive design is when current knowledge = target knowledge
• We can bring users up to target knowledge (Training)
• Or take interactions down to current knowledge (Simplifying)
• Technology -> Features -> Experience
• An intuitive design focusses of experience
• Increase in features leads to re-factoring of features: experience is the root
• Redesigning can push people back down ‘escalator of knowledge’
• In summary:
  • Identify knowledge
  • Identify knowledge gap
  • Assess impact of a redesign
• Watch users interact with your design: 2 hours every 6 weeks to begin with.

What Every Web Designer Should Know (Jeffrey Zeldman)

• Designers must let go of brand control
• We’re not necessarily in control of the visual experience
  • We never were!
• You’re not a UX designer if… (Whitney Hess)
• Design that doesn’t serve people doesn’t serve business
• Content first: design in the absence of content is decoration
• Content is king:Don’t use lorem ipsum.
  • Real content is vital to realistic design
• Don’t let use testing and evaluation hamstring creativity and innovation
• Our community is seeing a maturation in knowledge and thinking: a convergence in approach (across all disciplines)
• Semantic markup us a fundamental job skill
• Mobile and Small screens: two different things.
• Mobile:
  • Uses features of device (e.g. location)
• Small screen:
  • Limited screen space
• Adaptive Web Design (Aaron Gustafson)
• Responsive design is progressive enhancement taken to the next level
• You can learn about UX from the properties of HTML5
• ‘Pave the cowpaths’
• Fail predictably
• HTML5 is the first HTML designed for a world beyond documents.

The speakers (split into two tracks: Design–which is what I chose to follow–and Build, aimed more at developers) discussed the issues facing our industry today; how we should be approaching some of the more challenging aspects of our job; and where the industry is going – and how we all have a role in taking it in the direction we think it to go.

Coming soon…

I will be writing up my (copious, though summarised) notes after the weekend, but until then I’ll simply say that I’m incredibly fortunate to have gone: the speakers were inspirational, the topics were all discussion points and the free food and paraphernalia were excellent Thanks must go to Gavin Elliot for producing the conference itself, to my company Agency Republic for having a training budget, and Bash Isai & Kean Richmond for some great company at the conference.

If you can persuade your company to send you–or afford to send yourself–next year, I’d highly recommend it. While Newcastle may seem a long way away (especially to those in London, like myself), it’s more than worth the trip.

Each of the terms in this small collection–such as DHTML, and AJAX–began life as a dry, technological label, used to categorise a specific technique. However through a process of misappropriation, misunderstanding and marketing, they came to represent far more than they were created for.

Fighting the good fight

With HTML5, many people saw this coming: Bruce Lawson, Jeremy Keith and many others have battled against HTML5 being used as the billowing sails on The Good Ship Future Technologies. Ultimately however, these efforts may be crushed beneath the marketing juggernaut that has already set about using the term for exactly this purpose.

The problem is this. HTML5 (and related technologies) is indeed the future of our industry, bringing with it a wealth of empowering, game-changing tools for developers to craft the next paradigm shift: most users, however, cannot tell the difference between a page built with HTML4 and Javascript ‘Polyfills’, and one built with HTML5.

And nor should they care, either; we strive today to build interactions that engage, empower and amaze, and all the while hiding the plugs and wiring so that the experience is seamless, and transcends the platform.

Let’s be honest

So, stalking horses. We are using ‘HTML5′ (and therefore Exciting-Future-New) as a way of persuading clients to buy into more dynamic, experiential concepts. The actual technology is irrelevant (after all, why does the client care: all they need to know is that it works where they want it to work): the only people who really want to get our hands on this future tech is us.

I should add, however, that I am not against this. I disagree with ‘HTML5′ being waved from the parapets (it’s first and foremost a technical specification, after all), but if doing this is the best way we have of persuading people to think mobile, native and of the user experience, then who are we to complain. It’s just a shame we had to sell off some of the family silver to achieve it.

When we think of technology, we generally thinking of tools we use to solve problems: today the term is more associated with leading edge (often computer-related) tools, though the definition of technology is nowhere near as specific. Using our modern use of the word, seemingly simple tools such as the hammer, the torch, and the garden hose would all be labelled as  ’technology’ when the were first created. Technology, it seems, is now linked to age.

Today, we’re reaching the point in technological advancement where the capabilities of the tools themselves are becoming less relevant–moreover, the focus is moving away from the definitive, measurable properties of these tools. Screen resolution, processing power, memory: all of these are reaching the point in development where users (quite rightly) need not care about them… and it’s becoming a question of how it make you feel when you interface with the tool.

Emotional connection

Stand back and consider that thought for a moment: we’re entering an era where the numbers will mean nothing, and the emotional and experiential connection you make with a device is all that matters (and all that you care about). It’s quite a liberating thought, and seems to be a continuation of the humanisation of information technology, that began with Graphical User Interfaces (GIUs) and today sees us picking up iPads in our millions.

There is an ironic (or perhaps fitting) side-effect of this process. Already today, we’re seeing experiential technologies emerge — from 3D TV to touch-screen devices (and even ‘tactile’ feedback, where the sensation of texture is simulated on a touch-screen surface).

The issue however is how do you share this experience, with someone who’s never experienced it for themself? (better yet, how do you advertise these new tools… marketers, beware.) The irony lies in this: we live in an era where every move, every thought is shareable–but suddenly, we have no way of sharing something so simple as an experience. Will we have to start explaining tools in terms of how they make us feel, instead of what it is actually capable of?

Apple

Apple seem to be leading this charge–in fact, they have built the company’s ethos around the transition from computers and numbers to smiles and fingertips.

Until other companies draw the same conclusions about the future of technology, Apple is going to have the future to itself for this reason: most people don’t care about statistics or benchmarks, they care about the enabling and humanistic potential of technology. These same people might not put it in those words (or even be consciously aware of it), but the population at large don’t want their computer to feel like an alien whose language they need to learn.

Boon Chew: How a Developer became a UX Designer

UX Architect at The Bio Agency

http://www.slideshare.net/jaremfan/how-a-developer-became-a-ux-designer

Boon is a former back-end developer, who has recently transitioned to become a UX designer. He wanted to talk about how he achieved this, why it was worthwhile, and the challenges he faced.

• Main difference between UX designer role & developer role: Defining the experience, not building it.
• To aid & facilitate transition, he began by reading more widely (i.e. outside of tech domain) – Seth Godin, Jakob Neilsen
• UX is not just about the technology
• Key book: About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design by Alan Cooper http://t.co/1odM5N6
• HCI, IxD (Interaction Design), UX courses in London – lots available, strong/supportive UX community in London

Key challenges:

• Challenging assumptions
• Overcoming fear of inefficiency and disorder (common problem among developers)
• Learning that design doesn’t exist in a vacuum: interoperates with every medium/discipline

‘Glue Thinking‘: provides structure

• Makes things sticky
• Creates balance

Jonathan Kahn: Content Strategy is a big deal for UX

Founder of TogetherLondon.com

http://lucidplot.com/2011/02/03/content-strategy-ux-lightning/

Jonathan discussed why content strategy is so hot right now, and how we can play our part.

• Content strategy is the moment you realise you need to do more thinking
• We focus too much on the structural component of content, when the more realistic, ‘people’ components (workflow & governance) need focus & attention too
• Content strategy is a way into asking more questions
• We’re experiencing a time of great change (move from offline to online; the industrial revolution of our age); UX is playing its part
• Persuasion techniques are important, but be wary of dark patterns
• how to deal with this? Become content strategy advocate
• Start early: highlight issues up front, get people talking
• Lots of effort, but worth it in long run

http://csforum.eu/ – Content Strategy forum in September, in London

Cennydd Bowles: (A Rant)

UX designer at Clearleft

Cennydd told us that instead of the presentation he had planned to give, he wanted to rant instead: about the UX industry itself.

• last 12-18 months: huge new interest across industry
• Problems ahead…
• too much belief in our own hype
• effectiveness/reach of UX has been over-sold
• UX as a catalyst for behavioural change: persuasion design is not part of UX (PD prioritises business goals above those of the user)
• Too much power-worship… power-hungry UX practitioners?
• Too much demand for UX skills, not enough experienced practitioners
• We need more humility, respect, and to remember those who founded the industry (and the struggle they had to get us here today)

Problems remain

• Authorisation, identity, payment, accessibility – all still major issues
• these have not been solved! The is work still to be done
• Need to regain humility & focus:
• New devices means new opportunities
• Solve genuine problems

Let’s be judged by the work we do, not the words we write/speak.

Tyler Tate: From Pattern to Component

UX designers at TwigKit & Nutshell

http://www.slideshare.net/tylertate/from-pattern-to-component

Tyler discussed the importance of components in UX design, and development – and how they underpin effective problem-solving.

• Henry Ford distilled car manufacture into components – increasing speed of production & efficiency
• A design pattern is a “refined solution to an everyday problem”
• Faceted navigation as an example
• A component contains tools & features to put patterns into action
• A blueprint is not equal to a building…
• Component libraries:
• jQuery UI
• ExtJS
• YUI
• Highcharts
• TwigKit – Faceted navigation example

Component must-haves:

- Sound interaction design

• meets users needs
• Clean code; good code
• Ready to use
• Easy to configure
• Well-documented
• “Libraries give the team speed and efficiency, letting them leverage the rich history of things-implemented-before”

Article on same topic here: http://uxmag.com/technology/from-pattern-to-component

Harry Brignull: Dark Patterns

UX Lead at Madgex

http://wiki.darkpatterns.org/

Harry took a look at Dark Patterns, in particular the effects that this can have on Google Instant results for your company.

• SEOMoz article: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/our-online-reputation-management-playbook
• negative Google Instant results are indicative of poor customer relationship/management
• Will be reflected in long term
• Fix these issues first, before attempting to ‘game’ Google Instant

Alex Horstmann: Speaking to the business (or how I learned to communicate in corporate speak)

Senior User Experience & Design Manger at Thomson Travel plc

Alex spoke about his personal experience working on UX, within a large corporate environment, and the inherent challenges involved in ‘turning the tanker’: educating colleagues about UX, its benefits, and what changes are required.

• UX industry is maturing
• But, still misunderstood inside of (especially large) companies
• How do we need to change to more effectively influence change in the company?
• Sales pitch approach
• Focus on deliverables
• Change language used to non-UX colleagues; easy to use jargon/industry-specific terms
• Our language is important – but avoid the buzzwords.
• Bring passion: meet them on their level
• Marketing has all the power… lets use their language and get a slice

Lucy Spence: What we can learn from the intelligence community

Head of Product (Acquisition & Retention) at LOVEFiLM

http://www.slideshare.net/lucyjspence/what-ux-can-leanr-from-the-intelligence-community

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49415654@N07/5409640323/lightbox/

Lucy sought to clarify the key differences between puzzles and mysteries, and why this knowledge is valid and applicable to UX (in particular, data analysis).

• Puzzles: the answer exists, you just have to find it
• binary in nature as a result
• Mysteries: no clear answer, no right/wrong answer too
• subject in nature
• UX came from task completion: binary, quantifiable
• Her experience: lots of interrelated elements, change can be unpredictable
• need to seek pinch-points in problem
• more analysis can lead to more complexity
• ends up in ‘death by data’

How to solve this:

• identify puzzles and mysteries separately
• identify quick wins as a result
• don’t play whack-a-mole!
• be objective
• experiment (e.g radical A/B testing: totally different solutions, side by side)
• you can be more responsive to the outcomes from this
• more time spent up front:
• flexible, modular
• save time in long run

Future:

Use segmentation, statistical theory, etc to make results easier to see.

Rory Hamilton: Service touchpoints and the uncanny valley

Freelance UCD Consultant

Rory, the last speaker of the night, drew comparisons between the issues he faces in his role as a service design consultant, and ‘the uncanny valley’.

• Works with ‘touchpoints’ – the points in a relationship with a customer/consumer where they come into direct contact with your services, or your offerings
• uncanny valley as a concept is applicable to user interaction:
• the more intelligent a system, the closer the interaction – to a point.
• automated responses = bad
• personalised service = good.
• User Interaction route along the curve: non-responsive -> fun -> zombie -> delighting.

All in all, 8 fantastic presentations: each very different, and giving a different perspective on a discipline that has roots predating the internet, but is only now beginning to see the flowers of their efforts. Thanks to all involved – especially @leemcivor for organising the event.

With the field enjoying an upswell in awareness (not to mention relevance today), I felt that it would be a useful practise to take what I’ve learned, spread it out, and hold it up to the light – to work out the implications of UX to web development, and how we got to where we are today.

Experience counts

UX stands for User eXperience (presumably because things with an ‘X’ in them sound more cool); to quote Wikipedia, “UX is… how a person feels about using a system“. This is perhaps overly simplistic as a summary, but gives a good indication of the ambition and scope of UX.

The entry continues, “User Experience highlights the experiential, affective, meaningful and valuable aspecs of Human Computer Interaction“. What becomes apparent here is that a) UX is highly subjective, applying as it does to how a user ‘feels’ about a system, and b) that UX is by no means limited, conceptually at least, to the field of web design.

How we got here

Other design mediums (such as consumer product design, and interior design) have been ‘experientially focussed’ for some time: the fact that web design is now undertaking a similar progression is simply a sign of a maturing medium–one that has figured out its strengths and capabilities, and has solved the core issues relating to its weaknesses, limitations and format.

In the process of characterising UX, I have come to see it as the result of such progression:

1. Technology and design
Initially, during the early years of the web, the focus was on the mechanics of the web, and the new and emerging tools that developers were wielding to build this shiny new medium. The key goal were to create attractive interfaces, based on pre-existing design principles (ported over from other mainstream mediums, such as television & publishing).

2. Design patterns
As the medium began to evolve, an awareness of patterns in user behaviour emerged. As well as build upon user expectation, designers and developers experimented to forge new conventions, and new metaphors that suited the medium: metaphors that sought to create bridges between old mediums and the new interactive capabilities of the web.

3. Usability and Accessibility
As user tracking and metrics developed, it became possible to measure, evaluate and refine user interactions. Tasks became goal-driven, as the modular nature of the web developed.

4. User Experience
User Experience seeks to optimises how the user perceives an interaction. As websites have become a cornerstone of business & advertising strategy, UX is a way of binding together the (sometimes conflicting) interests of multiple stakeholders, and moulding a consistent and high-quality experience across multiple channels.

What you can do

People who excel at UX will be inquisitive, empathetic, and above all dissatisfied with the interactions they experience every day (I’ve read that a good UX designer should be ‘in a constant state of frustration’ with the world, and ‘seek to improve it one interaction at a time’ ).

Not everyone will be naturally skilled in these areas: building skills like these take time, and involves patience and observation. But that shouldn’t put you off; taking the time to challenge and dissect the interactions you experience can (and will) lead to a much greater satisfaction with the things you build–simply because you know that you can connect with your users at a much deeper, and more effective level.

Keep in mind the following points when designing and building websites:

• Think holistically. With every page in a site, remember that it represents the whole, and should be designed as such.
• Discuss interactivity. A disconnect between design and technology is common; bridge the gap, and involve the designers in discussions about how the website responds to user input.
• Be consistent. Reinforcing user familiarity across a site breeds trust in the user–invaluable in crafting an effective experience.

Further reading

Here’s a collection of sites & blogs that I read in relation to UX, all of which have all been very useful in framing UX as a discipline (and putting UX into context for me personally). from the list below, I’d recommend both UX Booth and 52 Weeks of UX especially.

• UX Booth: http://www.uxbooth.com/blog/
• 52 Weeks of UX: http://52weeksofux.com/
• UX Magazine: http://uxmag.com/
• Boxes and Arrows: http://www.boxesandarrows.com/
• UX Matters: http://www.uxmatters.com/ (Usually quite long, but very comprehensive articles – worth taking the time for)
• Think Vitamin: http://thinkvitamin.com/category/user-science/user-experience/ (Not a site about UX specifically, but they have a collection of resources about UX that I’ve found useful)

While this may sound a little dry to some — especially considering that I work as a front-end web developer — the torrent of statistics produced on the day should be of interest to anyone working within the digital space. Below, I’ve picked out some of the most note-worthy numbers, and discuss why they’re of significance.

Don’t believe the hype

First of all, it may (or in fact may not) come as a surprise to hear that iPhone users currently represent only 5% of the EU mobile phone market. Despite all of the hype, marketing and general clamour surrounding Apple’s device, less than 1 in 20 users own one: 25% of EU are currently smartphones – and of this, 19% are iPhones.

By comparison, Nokia’s Symbian OS accounts for 55% of the same market, and Google’s Android 5%. However the situation is changing rapidly, as you may imagine; smartphones are predicted to account for more than half of the mobile phone market within 3 years, currently growing 40% year-on-year.

Applications

Another statistic I found a little surprising was that 75% of mobile phone users don’t use applications (recognising here that non-smartphones can run applications too). As web developers, it’s all too easy to make assumptions about mobile users: especially that the average user, while not being as technically minded as ourselves, are at least aware of the capabilities and functionalities of modern phones (and computers for that matter). Often this is not the case.

Regarding app usage in general, a few interesting trends are emerging. While a largely predictable list of categories dominate usage (mapping, social networking, weather & news), it seems that mobile shopping and banking are seeing explosive growth. This is indicative of not only the developing capabilities of mobile phones, but also of users’ acceptance and trust of their phones as secure, capable devices.

One more statistic regarding apps caught my eye, regarding free apps versus paid-for apps. In Apple’s App Store, 28% of apps are free, yet this segment accounts for 75% of all app downloads. (The free/paid ratio for other app stores, such as Google’s Android Market, do vary widely: in the Android Market for example, 57% of apps are free.)

As far as Apple is concerned, this still means that at least 2 billion paid-for apps have been downloaded – but it’s indicative of the uses people envision for their device, and the value they attach to paid-for functionality. (Here’s something to think about: if apps like those produced by Facebook and Twitter were paid-for, instead of free, how would this have affected the app landscape today? Would apps be even less prevalent (and the resultant web traffic/reach of these companies diminished), or would users perhaps be more comfortable with paying for functionality?)

Emerging markets

Emerging markets were also discussed during the course of the day. The distilled impression I made from the various slides and comments on the subject was this: more highly developed countries, with a long-established desktop computing culture, are actually slower to engage with and transition to mobile computing in all its forms. Instinctively, you might imagine that a country with a more wealthy and technologically-skilled populace would more rapidly adopt new technologies; it would seem that the the reverse is true.

A number of other factors may be involved — such as, a greater percentage of users in emerging countries may be classed as ‘early adopters’, giving the impression of being more fleet-footed — but perhaps basic human psychology is at play: the more knowledge we have in a given subject, the less likely we are (broadly speaking) to challenge and subvert that knowledge.

Summing up

While not curently active in mobile app development, or actively developing websites for mobile browsers (though I stay as up-to-date as I can given the job that I have), I found the MMA Consumer Insight Briefing to be a fascinating snapshot of a market that — while vast — seems somehow shapeless to me, and in constant flux. This description was largely confirmed (in that even the experts argue and struggle in sketching out the past, present and future of the mobile industry, in all its various directions it seems), but overall I feel more confident in my knowledge of the potential of mobile, and at very least a decent grasp on the direction we should be headed.