Usability Watch - Tuborg Beer

In pursuit of looking at all dimensions and examples of usability around us (mostly in software world), we're committed to bring you readers some focused reviews and experiences on real-world products. Products that have innovated to achieve a long-lasting user experience. The case in question today is: Tuborg Beer.

I have been a delighted consumer of beer since 1997, and have experienced the taste of many brands over the years. With evolving taste buds and changes in company at the tables, I have shifted loyalties too; some due to geographical constraints of unavailability of few brands. Anyways, no beer has caught my fancy to the extent of a not-so-far-ago launched brand in India - Tuborg, a beer of Denmark. The main reason of my fascination was beyond its soothing mild flavor; it was the usability innovation in its packaging! And it hit me and my close friends that all these years, we'd never "missed" this neat little way of opening the bottle like a beverage can. The very apparatus that makes drinking a beverage in a can more fun and manageable as compared to a bottle, was simply introduced in the bottled drink.



Wow! The expression is also about the experience you get by the sound made. It's not just a convenience about managing without hunting for an opener. It's the ambiance this creates. Almost invisible cold white fumes emitted after a "puckk!" - just setting the tone right, even for teetotalers. And the makers must have known indeed one of the immediate promotion benefits - the strong recall value about this unique mechanism. The word-of-mouth viral effect I hear was very strong, naturally.

A good watch on usability and user experience - from a beer maker (Tuborg).

Thoughts?

We'll be posting similar features, taking on examples of singular products - opining about the user experience. If you wish to contribute any such reviews/experiences, please get in touch - we would love to feature them on our blog, post-moderation of the content.

WATCH THIS SPACE!

Visibility Principle

A user interface is only valued when the user interactions achieve their purpose. The first element of user interaction is what the user sees in the interface. Visibility is all about how clearly the user sees the state of the interface and all the possible actions. If the users cannot "see" how to use the interface, it is not adhering to the visibility principle of user interface design. Let's dive into some real-world examples and then follow-through with web examples.

 

Good visibility - car dashboard that is designed with everything positioned in a way that can be easily found and used.

 

Sleek design in this case compromises usability - auto-faucets have a great advantage of saving water, but its common challenge is "where to put our hands" to ensure timely hand-wash.

Style yes, visibility of main functions - a big NO! One of the most complex wrist-watch dial ever designed.

How many combinations!? Phew!

 

Most straightforward with high visibility - ATM.

Over to few web examples:

• google


• dropbox


• business catalyst


• high rise


• fidelity


• acosmin


• justdial

Employ commonsensical ideas like highlighting important parts of your web page on top center, avoiding dead-ends, and always suggesting users the 3 answers: "where he is", "what there is", and "where can he go next".

Suggestions?

Staying Live with SAP

You cast off all legacy systems and installed SAP; SAP ties it all together – but it costs. And did you achieve answers to your problems? Or are you contemplating to look for an alternative, because the migration introduced new problems?

ERP-centric companies are missing out on the full potential of a solution as rich as SAP, because they are failing to appreciate the implications – and continuing to make the mistakes of traditional systems development and integration. SAP implementation projects are suffering from ‘undue focus’ on technology, lack of user interface, lack of attention to human and organizational needs, lack of evaluation, and very little integrated working – internally between systems.

Measuring RoI is an essential prerequisite of any IT investment today. But the big problem is that it is far from quantifiable. And if the investment is as huge as an SAP implementation, the aforementioned problem becomes magnified. Spending on IT is no longer identified as an expense, but as an investment. And RoI is based on cash flow analysis. It is also true that management, and not technology, will ensure success or failure. Integration of business objectives with IT solutions succeeds only when management if committed to ensure a smooth transition of change management. “Leveraging staff and current investment” is the biggest faced challenge.

Most commonly posed questions:

• Can we reuse current investment?


• Can we simplify increasingly complex business processes?


• Can we increase productivity?


• Can we lower maintenance costs?

Until the early nineties, the relationship between an organization’s investment in IT and its impact on the performance and productivity was never seriously measured. Perhaps, the most critical reason was one’s inability to segregate the benefits based on ‘Deployment of IT’ vis-à-vis ‘Deployment of robust processes.’ Only if an organization has the latter approach to an SAP implementation, will it see the value and reap the benefits in the longer run. In accordance with the above approach, it must be added that SAP demands a fundamental change in the processes followed by business and the people who work those processes.

Change, being painful by nature, discourages many to take the second approach. However, if you install SAP as software without changing the ways people do their jobs, you may not see any value at all – and the new software (SAP) could slow you down by simply replacing the old legacy software that everyone was used to. On the other hand, if you are able to use SAP to improve ways your people take orders, manufacture goods, fill timesheets, for example, you will see value from it.

SAP, in spite of being one of the largest and most successful vendors of enterprise resource planning (ERP), ironically is a misnomer. For one, it DOES NOT help your planning. Resource – and the ownership of that resource in any business – is a hazy term. What is right about it is the enterprise part. It successfully integrates all departments and functions across a company onto a single computer system that serves the particular needs of different departments. Organizations opting for SAP as their ‘back-office software’ have one or more of the following reasons – to integrate financial information; integrate customer order information; standardize and speed up core business processes – manufacturing, financial services – but whatever be the case; reduce inventory, non-performing assets – as the case may be; and standardize HR information.

Business benefits aside, SAP as an ERP delivers well on three necessary objectives – consistency and reliability of data across the organization; streamlined transaction processing; and operations-level reporting.

Which is a better approach – Going for an ERP vendor like SAP or going for specialized point products? Opinions vary, based on a survey of several successes and failures in either case. Important is to base your evaluation on your business case, the strength of transaction processing backbone, and the desired room for sophistication. At times, an ERP like SAP is not able to handle a function vital for the company. In such cases, a specialized third-party product can be interfaced to deliver the result. For example, Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd implemented SAP R/3; they found that they needed far superior functionality in the insurance area. They opted for IVL’s iNSUR/3, a comprehensive add-on package with SAP R/3 ERP solution that addresses the needs of enterprises in the areas of insurance and claims management. The company was able to authenticate information on numerous critical data of the insurance processes and cut down nearly 50% of excess manpower costs. It could increase the efficiency of the supply chain by integrating the routine insurance related activities into SAP R/3 Business Framework.

SAP is generic enough to cater to 24+ industries. As much as this being a strong point in favor, it introduces a major limitation – Usability! And this compromise cannot be escaped from, internally. The reason is commonsensical – in making itself applicable to diversified industries, diversified processes, SAP was forced to provide innumerable data elements packaged logically in discrete screens and transactions; terminology used on-screen is also generic in nature for the same reason. Following table captures the common ‘effects’ faced by most customers, and the ‘causes’ leading to those symptoms.

EFFECTS

• Tedious and error-prone data entry


• Users spending more time on SAP than their primary tasks


• Steep learning curve


• High costs in training and re-training

CAUSES

• UI peppered with inconsequential data elements


• SAP by nature is more transaction-driven than process-driven


• Complex and excessive navigation to perform a task


• Imprecise and confusing terminology for your industry

Whatever industry you are in, “it’s all about productivity!” Productivity suffers if end-users are not comfortable with ‘what they see’ on screen and ‘how they interact’ with the screen. SAP evolution from R/2 to R/3 to Frogdesign look (EnjoySAP) has made a conscious effort to bring home better usability. However the spectrum traversed on this front is and is going to be limited because of the earlier mentioned fact – the generic nature.

Better usability can be achieved by internal and/or external customization and consolidation. For example, ABAP, the architectural language of SAP, can be used to re-configure, modify UI screens based on specific business process needs. Similarly, an external program (third-party) may be used to integrate with SAP in order to better the user experience. Or a combination of both! Important factors helping evaluate the approach are captured in the following points.

The solution:

SHOULD NOT

• change the underlying business logic of SAP


• incur extra overhead in terms of heavy maintenance and upgrade costs


• reduce system performance


• affect data integrity

SHOULD

• increase productivity and efficiency


• minimize or eliminate training and maintenance costs


• allow users to focus on their primary tasks


• provide flexibility in terms of deployment and configuration

For example, Rexam Beverage Can Americas implemented SAP R/3 to use its PM (Plant Maintenance) module for mapping their processes, for example – creating a maintenance work order; releasing the work order; and printing the work order – all of which they wanted to happen within 30 seconds. The Plant Manager of Rexam, New Jersey, Mr. Steve Foster and his team of professionals, during SAP training, found the interface neither simple enough nor fast enough to enable what they had in mind. “We had this idea of creating a maintenance system that looked like an ATM (automated teller machine),” says Foster. “No one’s ever been trained on how to run an ATM, yet everyone can use one. Why should it be any more difficult to create a work order in SAP?”

Foster and team found what they needed in a then little known product called GuiXT (software bundled within SAP R/3), developed by Synactive GmbH. With the help of a Synactive consultant, a Rexam programmer was able to use GuiXT to create an SAP PM interface that does, in fact, resemble an ATM in its simplicity. The basic menu screen contains just 10, touch-screen, function push buttons, each of which triggers a series of standard SAP functions that run in the background, but are transparent to the user. In some cases, a single button launches SAP transactions that would have otherwise required the user to navigate 12 to 15 separate screens using standard SAP interface, Foster says.



The result, according to Foster, is that Rexam training requirements for the SAP PM system were cut from an estimated 40 hours per machine operator – which would have been required using a standard SAP interface – to 4 hours with the simplified GuiXT enabled SAP interface. Multiplied times the 1,500 plant operators who would be using the system, that’s a savings of 54,000 hours. “We more than recovered the cost of GuiXT license in the training savings alone,” Foster observes. Moreover, the simplicity of GuiXT interface enabled Rexam to largely meet the 30-second goal for its users. “I’d say we’re hitting that 30-second goal about 80% of the time, and for the other 20%, it’s less than 45 seconds,” Foster notes.

Conceptually, from a CIO’s perspective, the perfect system would be one in which one could reuse invested software, describe software architecture so that a non-expert could successfully execute and simplify complex business modeling, and automate user tasks – all of the above with no or least maintenance.

Can you find or build one? Are you willing to Change?

 

Boorish behavioral patterns

To many coders, application development is the more glamorous part of software development, as compared to building the user interface for the same. What most of coders ignore however, is that to the end-user, the user interface IS the system. And what most end-users want is a system, which is functional, intuitive, easy to use and has sensible defaults. Humans during their evolution from cavemen to the current society have come up with a number of rules, governing various aspects of social behavior. These are the rules that are commonly referred to as social manners. We argue that a large number of the behavioral patterns classified as “good manners” apply to software application interfaces also. Consequently, user interface designers who tend to ignore “good manners” run the risk of making their applications as bad or rude software citizens.

But what are good manners? Simply put, good manners can be summarized as show consideration, respect and care for others.  It is somewhat surprising then that, whereas most of the creators of various software and web applications are well behaved and possess good social ettiquettes, some of their creations are truly rude and obnoxious in their interactions with end-users. It seems that many computer applications do not follow the basic tenets of social interactions which are common knowledge. The disconcerting fact is that some of the usability issues that underly such rude behavior has been identified and understood for decades.

Some examples of rude interfaces are summarized below:

1. Irrevocable Steps: This typically refers to instances when the system decides to take some irrevocable steps, with or without user consent. Automatically applying patches and rebooting the system is a concrete example. This is seen on windows environments, wherein the OS is configured to automatically download some patch from windows update without informing/intimating the user, and after the patch is installed, auto-rebooting the system. This is the physical equivalent of your futuristic car deciding to clean itself, suddenly change directions from your current destination to the carwash, throwing all the users out of the car and washing itself.


2. Pushy Behavior: Application developers want end-users to use their software as much as possible. But when their desire to promote their software to desktop users translates to the software adding itself in a number of places, including the startup menu, desktop icon, task bar, right click context menu and changing the default application for a number of file types to use itself, it can be termed as pushy behavior. Real player, and before that Paint Shop Pro was notorious for such behavior.


3. Pot calling Kettle black: While doing application design, it is the responsibility of the programmer to not just anticipate, but even expect incorrect inputs from the end-users, who often are not technically savvy. In a lot of cases, however, instead of designing the software to be robust and fault tolerant, the programmers blame the end-users via vague and rude error messages. An example of such is when the application attempts to confirm some obvious condition from the end-user eg - The infamous DOS error Abort, Retry, Fail?


4. Cryptic error messages: The HTTP status codes comprise of a list status codes that webservers return as a response for any HTTP request. In fact, all the HTTP status codes are very terse and to-the-point, but what is more puzzling is when website designers directly throw these cryptic error messages to end users. A very common example is, when a web server throws a “404 - page not found” error. It is fairly trivial for the website designers to put out a more graceful error message, or even re-direct it to a generic error page having a more polite error message.


5. Threatening error messages: These are error messages that threaten the end-user with some sort of destructive behavior (typically data loss). That this is a very rude behavioral pattern for the application goes without saying, but what is worse is that the programmer has anticipated the condition that causes this error message, and instead of fixing the root cause, added a threatning error message to the end-user. eg - “Continuing with the operation may cause permanent data loss and cannot be undone. Yes/No?”


6. Contract breaker: Windows GUI applications (typically) have a contract with the end-user that exiting the main window will close the applications. Applications that fall in this category satisfy the exit contract but keep running in the background hogging memory or CPU. Adobe is a prime example of such behavior.

We will be exploring some more such examples and analyzing their underlying patterns in upcoming posts. Please watch this space for more details.

Simplicity Principle

SIMPLICITY.

We saw few examples and points on one of the principles of user interfaces - structure. This features focuses on Simplicity.

Why do you need your site to be simple?

Site visitors will rarely visit your site to "enjoy" the design. The design should be very transparent and complementary to the content. From the visitor's point of view, the best design is pure text that echoes the content they're looking for. Nobody really has the time and patience to interpret your design. Remember, the complexity and abstractness that some design concept introduces does not command any appreciation for the hard work that's perhaps gone into creating the design. Strive for simplicity - easy to comprehend layout and text.

How can you achieve simplicity in your web site?

The idea is to achieve a perfect blend of details and their presentation on screen.

• Use graphics sparingly and meaningfully; also make sure it's light on size.


• If short text is sufficient, avoid having complex wordings. For ex: Use "Search" instead of "Quick Keyword Search" for your search functionality.


• Use suggestive and direct icons that are consistent with web terminology and use less space on screen.


• Use colors and fonts sparingly.


• Do not use jarring animations and advertisements.


• White/Blank Space is underrated; use it effectively.


• Use elements that work consistently across all browsers (HTML + CSS); avoid elements that cause issues across different environments (JavaScript, Flash).

Few examples of Simple web sites:

• blejskam


• enso


• artypapers


• distinct


• symphony cms


• opened hand


• jgm


• open communications

KISS philosophy has been around since the dawn of web site design. KISS does not mean boring and dull sites. It is possible to create great looking sites and still keep it simple using simple techniques, as exemplified in the above list of sites. Concept of simplicity is more complex than it may seem; but achievable.

Stay on for more discussions and examples on principles of user interfaces.

Structure Principle

STRUCTURE.

In my blog post, Principles of User Interface Design, we touched on various aspects of user interfaces. This feature will discuss few specific points of one of the aspects - Structure - followed by few examples.

Why do you need your site to be structured?

Well, you need your customers/prospects to understand quickly what need of theirs will your product/service fulfill. It is important for the visitors to find relevant information quickly, and get easy access to additional information if necessary. Your public domain, which is the place for introducing all that you do, can and will change in the future. Having a good and expandable structure would make this job easy and seamless. Having a good structure (which also means not random, but structured set of keywords) will also make the site findable on search engines. The customer also needs to have alternate paths to key areas and information on the site for better decision-making.

How can you achieve structure in your web site?

Main idea is to establish the information architecture for site content areas in providing clear, visitor-specific paths to useful and relevant information.

• Internal site linking structure - have logical grouping/linking between main navigational elements (either left or top) and secondary/direct navigation (right, center, or bottom).


• Linking between sections - have good cross-linkages and quick jumps to important sections of your site (for example: customer stories, case studies, thought-leadership blogs).


• Page-specific navigation - it is not a bad idea to design page-specific navigation and access to information. In fact, each page has to serve a specific purpose and it's a mistake to have all pages behave the same in a large site. For example, "About us" section needs to be very different than a section about "Products/Services" not just in presentation and writing style, but also in flow.


• Keywords as sections - site visitors will feel at home with the structure of the site, if we make user keywords as section names.


• Site Exits - design specific click-to-action elements for a logical exit from your site. For example: Inquiry Forms, Downloads, Feedback, Sign-ups, Share/Like.

Few examples of sites with good structure:

• mozilla


• vector consulting


• protolize


• sumagency


• greenpepper


• bearskinrug


• bbc


• usa gov


• abebooks


• rotten tomatoes

Structure it now; structure it well.

Stay with us for more features on other principles with more examples.

Reasons for Branding Usability Revamp

Branding and Usability

The visual identity created for a brand translates the brand strategy into clear, distinctive messages. Strategic identity stems from the core values of the company, expressing a consistent and unique vision. This ensures strong associations in the mind of the customer, inspiring trust and respect in the long term; beyond the life of any single product or service.

Rationale and Advantage

• Bring out Conceptual Message and USP


• Fulfill business inquiries with ease


• Reduce maintenance costs


• Increase customer satisfaction


• Grow competitive advantage


• Eliminate over design


• Increase accessibility to relevant information


• Increase sales and revenue


• Share right content in the right form


• Showcase Products, Solutions, Services, and Customers

It is far too important for your brand identity and brand strategy to be consistent and complementary. Make sure you use your public domain (logo, web site, social media, blogs, etc.) in high synchronization with your brand. Knowing your current and future audience (customers, employees, partners, investors) is very important while achieving consistency in branding revamp.

Good luck!

Confusing Interface (Dilbert)

The Five Es of Usability

PREAMBLE.

We saw the philosophical angle to various dimensions of usability in previous blog posts, with several examples. This series will focus on the practical dimensions - another, deeper view of the characteristics of usability: Whitney Quesenbery's Five Es of Usability. With examples, of course.

ISO 9241 defines usability as:

The effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specified users achieve specified goals in particular environments.

effectiveness: the accuracy and completeness with which specified users can achieve specified goals in particular environments; efficiency: the resources expended in relation to the accuracy and completeness of goals achieved; satisfaction: the comfort and acceptability of the work system to its users and other people affected by its use.



Extending the concept, and narrowing it down to fundamental elements, experts suggest the following five characteristics that are necessary to be met for the users of a product or a web site:

• Effective


• Efficient


• Engaging


• Error Tolerant


• Easy to Learn

Watch this space as we dig into each individual 'E' with some relevant examples.

Usability Dimension: "Valuable"

VALUABLE.

The 7th and last feature in the series of Usability Dimensions. For earlier features, kindly follow the following links: useful, usable, desirable, findable, accessible, and credible.

Depending on the specific case, all previously discussed dimensions need to be balanced in varying degrees, and not treated as mutually exclusive. However, the aspect of "valuable" is commonsensical and must. On one hand, it should relate to and contribute towards the company's ROI. On the other hand, it should also equate itself to ROE (User's Return on Experience). The user-interface design of your site or product should in effect result into one or more of measurable and sustainable benefits like:

• increase in sales


• increase in operational efficiency


• increase in productivity


• decrease in operational/maintenance costs


• re-use of existing components and infrastructure


• increase in brand awareness/networking outreach

This makes your site/product valuable. Only "shared" value (between Business community and User community) is the key to long term sustainability. I'm struggling to list down the examples of "valuable" websites, primarily because the "value" can be really diverse based on specific businesses, specific user community etc. For example, Technical Developers may find technology forum sites really valuable, much different than a teenager finding value in gaming or music sites, and so on. I'll attempt to list down few generic valuable sites that most end-consumers today from any category, qualification, or industry would not live without. Yes, it's easy to guess a few at least...as they would definitely echo your own choice too.

Here goes:

• google (Need I give a link for you to navigate?)


• youtube


• wikipedia


• facebook


• gmail (Isn't this a new term for email?)


• ebay


• linkedin

I encourage you to share your views and few more additions to the list, as comments to this post.

In conclusion, our sites and products must deliver value to the customers and sponsors. For non-profits, the user experience must advance the mission; for profits, it must contribute to the bottom line and provide customer delight.

Watch this space for more example-oriented features (please expect some overlaps in discussion points) through another series of the Five-Es of Usability - another view of usability dimensions: Effective, Efficient, Engaging, Error Tolerant, Easy to Learn.

Usability Dimension: "Accessible"

ACCESSIBLE.

We discussed findable a couple of days back in our series of features on various dimensions of usability. We arrive at a lesser adopted yet very important aspect of "accessibility."

Wikipedia defines Web accessibility as the inclusive practice of making websites usable by people of all abilities and disabilities. All users should have access to information and functionality. For example, a good site/app with textual equivalents for images and with meaningful links would help blind users using text-to-speech software. Sufficiently large text/images or enlargeable makes it easier for users with poor sight to comprehend. Making hyperlinks prominent with underline and not just by a color change, would help color-blind users. Similarly, making clickable areas large enough would help users who cannot control mouse with precision. Users with dyslexia and learning difficulties would appreciate when content is presented in plain language and illustrated with instructional diagrams and animations.



If some practices are followed, all users in fact can be accommodated while not sacrificing the overall usability of the web site. The needs that accessibility aims to address include:

• Visual: Visual impairments - blindness, low vision, color blindness;


• Motor/Mobility: Difficulty/inability to use hands, muscle slowness, lack of muscle control;


• Auditory: Deafness, hard of hearing;


• Seizures: Caused by visual strobe or flashing effects;


• Cognitive/Intellectual: Developmental disabilities, learning disabilities, poor memory, lack of problem-solving and logic skills.

Few examples of almost accessible sites:

• texas a&m


• state of california


• enabled online


• one day films


• genasys


• einfach-fuer-alle


• open web


• keep austin beautiful


• hoehner music

This site exemplifies how web elements can be designed to be accessible. It puts forth the most common items together on one site that can make a site accessible. Things like: choosing a proper color contrast, alternative text for images, separating the structure (navigation, heading, subheading) and presentation (words, fonts, images), allowing users control over re-sizing of content, etc. For overall guidelines, please refer to: WCAG 2.0.

Just as our buildings have elevators and ramps, our web sites and products should be accessible to people with disabilities (10% of the population). Today's it's good business and ethical thing to do. Eventually, it will become the law.

Next dimension in line: Credible.

Usability Dimension: "Findable"

FINDABLE.

Fourth feature in our series: Dimensions of Usability. First three posts discussed the dimensions - useful, usable, and desirable.

Peter Morville says: "Findability precedes usability, in the alphabet and on the Web. You can't use what you can't find."

For your web site, there are two aspects of findability: how well your site can be found on the Internet, and how well information can be found on your site. While the former aspect is very important and concerns itself with concepts like search engine optimization and marketing techniques, we're going to restrict this feature to the latter aspect of findability. The issues that affect findability are: organization of the web site, representation of the user interface, web standards, user interaction, navigation, and content. Achieving a good design and score in these parameters would actually directly contribute to having a higher SEO too.

A standard way of measuring this dimension: "findable" for your web site is usability testing methodologies such as: Tree Testing or Reverse Card Sorting. It's all about focusing on the user's ability to identify and navigate  through your site/application to find and retrieve information and sources relevant to his needs. Things like: navigation, sub-navigation, placement of content, choice of words and phrases, information-flow, search functionality...contribute towards making your web site findable or not.

Few examples of highly findable sites:

• opera


• hbo


• chandra harvard


• fwa


• questacon


• ted


• brainpop


• penguin classics


• stimulus

Simply put, we must strive to design navigable web sites, products, and locatable objects, icons, user interface elements, so users can find what they need. Few things to keep in mind:

• avoid having no way of going back to home


• don't have illogically named links


• have consistent navigation across different pages


• don't have too many sub-navigation levels/hierarchy


• use breadcrumbs and sitemaps


• make states of hyperlinks different and noticeable

Next usability dimension topic: Accessible.

Usability Dimension: "Desirable"

DESIRABLE.

We saw few examples of useful and usable sites and applications. This feature is on "desirable".

"Form follows function" is an age old principle. Everyone is up for beauty. Good looks (form) works like a charm, in any industry, at times even at the expense of function. You may be witness to a great looking movie star, less on acting skills gather more fan following than an average looking, but great actor. Likewise, you would find a person going for a used car, more interested in examining the exterior/body of the car than the functional parts like engine. What about an architect paying more attention to colors and symmetrical dimensions in space, rather than focusing on the lifelines of the household system - electrical and plumbing lines?

Same applies to software and internet world. Not many achieve the balance of their site/app being desirable, at the same time high on usability: useful, usable, etc.

Few examples of beauty that doesn't work:

• verbatim


• creative with a k


• real casual


• jones...


• got milk?


• record tripping


• lego


• echo genesis


• incredibox


• there studio


• coca cola light


• google gravity


• on toyota's mind

If the primary function/industry of your web site is to convey beauty, one should design for beauty. Else, beauty should be a by-product, still essential, but not at the expense of functionality and ease of use. A desirable site may attract more visitors in the short-term, but the visitors are unlikely to revisit as they would find it difficult to achieve their desired goals; in which case, a more functional site will score in the long-term.

Typical user echoes the following while using any of the above sites:

"where do i look?" "where do i click?" "what do i do?" "how long does this take to load?" "where's the navigation?" "how do i scroll?"

The sad part about these sites is that there's undoubted creativity and plenty of ideas that's gone into the concept and production. But, like most real things, a tool is no good unless you can figure out how to use it. There are multiple ways the sites fail to function. It can be visual clutter, slow loading time, navigation issues, archiving issues, visibility/scrolling issues, etc. Instead, direct the users to certain sections/pages of the site; make your navigation clear; make menus and icons self-explanatory; use proper contrast ratio for higher visibility; and have a clear "call-to-action". More...

Few brands like: Sony, Apple, Microsoft - achieve form without sacrificing function.

Watch this space for the next usability dimension: Findable.

Usability (Dilbert)

Principles of User Interface Design

from the theory of Larry Constantine and Lucy Lockwood in their usage-centered design, the principles are:

Structure Principle

• organize the user interface purposefully


• make it meaningful and useful based on clear, consistent models apparent and recognizable to users


• put related things together; separate unrelated things


• differentiate dissimilar things, make similar things resemble one another

Simplicity Principle

• make simple, common tasks simple to do


• communicate clearly and simply in user’s own language


• provide good shortcuts that are meaningfully related to longer procedures

Visibility Principle

• keep all needed options and materials for a given task visible


• do not distract user with extraneous and redundant information


• do not confuse user with too many alternatives for performing same task

Feedback Principle

• inform actions or interpretations


• inform changes of state or condition


• inform errors or exceptions


• keep mode of communication – relevant, clear, concise, and in language familiar to user

Tolerance Principle

• reduce cost of mistakes and misuse by allowing ‘undo’ and ‘redo’


• prevent errors by tolerating varied inputs and sequences and by interpreting reasonable actions

Reuse Principle

• reuse internal and external components and behaviors; maintaining consistency with purpose


• reduce the need for users to rethink and remember

The user interface of an application will often make or break it.  Although the functionality that an application provides to users is important, the way in which it provides that functionality is just as important.  An application that is difficult to use won’t be used.  Period.  It won’t matter how technically superior your software is or what functionality it provides, if your users don’t like it they simply won’t use it.  Don’t underestimate the value of user interface design nor of usability.

Paradigm Shift

Preamble.

Recently, had this interesting discussion with one of my mentors, regarding how the focus has seen itself changing teams in a software landscape - observed over 15+ years.

How Theoretical Innovation Would Kill Practical Usability?

My mentor gave me a great example where he was the eye-witness. Many years back, he was involved in some project proposal to demonstrate the *super* map-based route display on the dashboard of train-drivers in Japan. The idea was to make the jobs of the drivers easy by them visualizing the curves in their journey so that they can navigate/brake/speed up better. The drivers thought this would complicate their lives, as they have to now *forget* the fact that they are always going *straight*. Also, they can bid farewell to the natural physics laws they applied - in sensing the curves in the journey by push-pull feeling. Partial solution for access to functionality and unnatural UI did the rest in terms of killing the project.

Changing Trends.

Earlier, main focus was on Technology (close to 80%) and less on Functionality. Almost nil emphasis was given on the third aspect, the human aspect - the UI.

Later, as technology started changing faces rapidly, more emphasis was given on functionality. UI score didn't change much, except that it found few big takers (any guesses?) who were mostly criticized for selling mediocre functionality with a good face!

Now, when technology itself has become drag-drop, usable, template-driven (copy+paste), most focus is on functionality. What my team is struggling with is to educate the audience about the key importance of "access to functionality" - this would translate to UI and Usability taking at least half the focus in a software landscape.

Noteworthy Examples.

For example, Microsoft Office 2007 and Microsoft Office 2010 are essentially the same products in terms of main functionality. Yet, Office 2010 is being touted as a productivity tool by many organizations - all credit to the face-lift exercise due to which features previously unavailable (not accessible, hidden by design) suddenly were available and hence appreciated by most users.

Second example, SAP whose inherent strength of being 'the' ERP for more than 24 industries also has a known challenge - that of Usability. True to their stature, they had envisioned this many years back, and thus have bundled and supplied their customers with add-on tools like GuiXT that achieves a functional face-lift for SAP as a solution; the timing of promoting these tools again relate to the paradigm shift.

Thoughts?

Case Study: White Labeling

Background

Early 2007 was when this Global Leader in Technical Support and BPO Operations Company envisioned a fully integrated Tech-Support Portal. The underlying value proposition to their clients was to have a channel to provide inexpensive support to the end-customers, by cutting down on the expensive mode of support – voice, email and chat. January 2009 was when a Beta version of the Tech-Support Portal – “NextGen” was made ready and tested. The success of this initiative would mean stronger client retention and a significant increase in the bottom line.

The Company approached IDYeah Creations in March 2009 with the high-level need of giving a user-centric face-lift to NextGen.

Challenge

The main challenge was to make the portal completely intuitive and user-friendly, as the target end-users spectrum was very wide, ranging from a non-working house-wife to a busy businessman to a technologist. Furthermore, the Company wanted to “white label” their portal – giving a customizable and a personalized interface respective to the client’s brand identity and strategy.

Business Goals

• Increase client satisfaction


• Grow competitive advantage


• Increase bottom line

Project Objectives

• Bring out the conceptual message


• Reduce development time and cost


• Reduce maintenance cost


• Eliminate over-design


• Create a show-case of underlying tools and technologies


• Create a good visual appeal

Project Constraints

• Overall Timeline of 10 days


• White labelling should be possible after-delivery in under 1 day’s effort

Process

IDYeah Creations could not take a completely scientific approach, with the established project constraints. A blend of scientific, emotional, and instinct based approach was taken.

User & Task Analysis

User Profiling and Task Analysis served as a foundation for validation of use case workflows. The range of user needs for access to information required a detailed “user to task” analysis exercise to determine what online functionality was most valuable to each identified user type. With the time constraints, we put 90% emphasis on one end of the user spectrum – that was converging towards computer-illiterate class of users. Once we established a usage pattern after conducting surveys and interviews with a sample of 40 users, we could easily extrapolate the pattern to cover other extreme of the spectrum.

Post-review of the features toolset of the portal, we established a master workflow that was aligned with the company’s vision of guiding the user through inexpensive, quick and easy support to the clients’ customers, while discouraging him/her to use phone as a channel.

Expert Evaluation

The then existing user-interface post-evaluation highlighted many areas of improvements – few of which were:

• Complicated structure of information


• Excessive navigation and lengthy workflows


• Confusing terminology


• Different channels of getting support (self-help, chat, email, etc.) are not obvious


• Difficult interface for white labelling


• Visual appeal missing

Above evaluation was backed up by findings that surfaced by referencing Jakob Nielsen’s Usability Heuristics.

Usability Heuristic	Findings
Visibility of system status	When Tools are downloaded, there’s appropriate status bar
Match between system and the real world	Language/terminology is misleading Symbols and graphics do not connect effectively with the perceived meaning
User control and freedom	Cumbersome navigation prevents users to easily switch between workflows
Consistency and standards	N/A
Error prevention	N/A
Recognition rather than recall	The tabs and pages need to be explained to a certain class of users No useful shortcuts found
Flexibility and efficiency of use	Multiple screens for any task, including login No helper mechanisms to facilitate efficient use
Aesthetic and minimalist design	4 Tabs in Top navigation are not required Banner is generic and does not provide any functional use Bottom-right of screen area covers functional use, but completely side-lined
Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors	N/A
Help and documentation	Much needed and missing

User Interface Design

IDYeah started working with a premise of having a singular page structure – one that is self-explanatory (even for a novice) and void of navigational steps. We toyed with an idea of having something similar to a real-world object that everyone identifies with and associates with as something that’s an information box – like a TV screen. This concept when sketched and shared with Sutherland team instantly created an excitement about the simplicity that was visualized. We had many more areas to cover, like adding conceptual messaging, allowing a customizable look, and covering all the functional aspects on a single screen.

Few Highlights

• Main focus (getting problems resolved) is on-the-face with a “search” interface


• “Conceptual messaging” is achieved by relevant graphics onto few tentacles, which echo what users think and also serves a functional purpose. We suggested to highlight the common problems of the month and link them to Knowledge base articles


• Login mechanism is inline


• All features are accessible and used within the TV screen interface


• Bottom part of the screen is reserved for some contextual elements that are specific to the client


• White labelling is made possible with an effort of approximately 4 hours


• Modern visual appeal

Benefits

The immediate benefits reaped by the Company were:

• Faster Release of NextGen


• Contextual Live Demonstrations to prospects due to easy white labelling

Long-term sustainable benefits:

• Marketability of NextGen


• Lower maintenance cost


• Quality of Sales Pitch


• Easy Showcase of Tools and Technologies


• User adoption and delight


• Strong client retention


• Profitability


• Brand Positioning

Summary

Usability increases customer satisfaction and productivity, leads to customer trust and loyalty, and inevitably results in tangible cost savings and profitability. Because user-interface development is part of a product’s development cost anyway, it pays to do it right. Most people view usability costs as added effort and expense, but the reverse is more commonly true.

The benefits of usability engineering can be achieved throughout the life of a product. Efficient methods and techniques can result in a faster release date allowing companies to unveil their products to the market prior to a competitor’s. A user-centred product can garner positive media reviews leading to increased sales. An effective, user-friendly user interface can increase customer ease of learning, ease of use, job satisfaction, and trust in the product.

Quotes

“Because the first 10% of the design process, when the key system-design decisions are made, can determine 90% of a product’s cost and performance, usability techniques help keep the product aligned with company goals.” (Smith & Reinersten)

“Incorporating ease of use into your products actually saves money. Reports have shown it is far more economical to consider user needs in the early stages of design, than it is to solve them later.” (IBM, 2001)

Business Value of Usability in IT

Recession or otherwise, there is an imperative need for the creation and deliverance of business value within companies. Businesses constantly look for ways of creating efficiencies, increasing productivity, streamlining processes, and reducing waste. They need to achieve more with less people. They need to identify and implement solutions bringing maximum value, while minimizing or eliminating resource expenditure and sunken costs.

IT investments such as software solutions, web sites, portals and applications or a full-blown ERP system – help companies take control of their entire business with the eco-system addressing multiple needs. However, measuring and leveraging on ROI on IT investments continues to be a challenge for most.

Based on a CIO Insight Survey,

• Only 60% companies measure the business value of IT
• 62% find it difficult to calculate the ROI
• 52% say executives are "skeptical" of ROI results
• 45% say metrics don't adequately capture business value

Business Value Dials are financial measurements of business value that map to the bottom line of the company. For example: Expense avoidance, Revenue increase, Working capital, and Headcount management.

One crucial dimension (and business value dial) that companies often overlook is leveraging upon Usability of IT systems in order to improve ROI. Usability, if employed at the right time and in the right manner - can yield one or more of the following "measurable" benefits, directly contributing to the company's bottom line:

• Better market position
• Faster growth
• Greater operational efficiency
• Increased productivity
• Improved asset utilization
• Increased margin

To summarize, Usability benefits in monetary savings, productivity increase, sales increase from IT products, services and operations.

Does your business value dial include usability?

Persuasive Design in Action

User Experience Best Practices

User Experience Best Practices

View more webinars from Nick Finck.