People-centered Design

Maps are Selective

Maps are always inaccurate

Journey maps, user mapping, and many other methods all aim to produce a map of some facet of the user experience.

Arguably all user research aims to find out truths about user needs, customer insights, etc etc. But these are usually based on quite limited data (usually broad, but shallow, or narrow but deep) and can in fact be thought of as maps (simplifications) of a complex space.

In this context it is useful to reflect on the fact that 2D representations of a 3D world are always inaccurate – even while being phenomenally useful.

Producing a good map requires a clear understanding of the purpose that the map will be used for. Making choices about what to represent and what not to represent must be based on that purpose.

The London Underground map is a great example of this fact, as is the ‘normal’ Mercator projection of a globe into two dimensions (which keeps latitude and longitude orthogonal to each other at the expense of an accurate presentation of land mass (size and shape).

Don’t write interview guides

If you are going to meet with users and do some qualitative research then I expect (hope, even) that you have had it drilled in to you to carefully construct an interview guide. Now, I ask you to remember that lesson, but throw away the interview guide! The very reason we take the time to go and meet with our users is to learn from them and to discover new insights about their behaviours, needs and desires. The very concept of an interview guide implies that you are taking the lead and guiding them. Which, in turn, implies that you know what needs to be talked about ... so what is the real chance of uncovering new discoveries here?

THE HAZARDS OF USER DATA AND FEEDBACK …

It seems almost sacrilegious to say it, but I think it is really important to maintain significant caution around data obtained from user feedback, testing or group discussions. Too often I hear people proudly say that all their design decisions are based on feedback from users, or one hears leadership asking that all the design decisions be based on documented data from user feedback. These attitudes are, of course, well-founded, but at the same time they are seriously misguided – and for a number of different reasons …

Usability considered harmful …?

Not necessarily the same as gathering input from users, ‘usability’ often implies a rigorous testing of a product or interface (in A-B testing or similar). But such rigorous, data-driven processes can arguably be quite detrimental to successful product or service design.

The importance of empathy

Who needs to understand who? But with whom? Most work focuses on our empathy with our customers or users, but it may often be the case that we need empathy with our colleagues even more.

Can we judge design from a single concept?

In the real world of commercial product design it is not uncommon for (UX) designers to spend most of their time working on the nuts and bolts (pixels and screens) of a single concept. But in order to identify the best approach to meeting the constraints of user needs, commerce and technology it is unlikely that the first concept is the optimal one. There is a reason many designers like to have a sketch books.

The compelling touchscreen – who benefits?

Touchscreens and touch interfaces are all the rage – but is this a people-centred movement? Arguably the strongest push for the use of touchscreens is the updatability of them – with a firmware update the UI can be changed significantly. But there are also strong marketing pressures as it is a common belief that touchscreens make a product feel more modern and innovative. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the car, where touchscreens increasingly dominate despite very good reasons to doubt their value to the driver.

UX Prototyping

Three-ring Binders

Unfocus Groups

Zyliss Kitchen Gadgets

ROLM: The digital PBX

Which People?