User Experience

posted 07/06/08 by Rick Webb

In 2007, the Barbarian Group formally established a well-staffed, well-organized department around User Experience design. Lead by Justin Baum, the group now has 5-7 people operating full time on an assortment of projects. Justin was a Barbarian back in the day, before he left to pursue formal career in User Experience, finally landing in the UX group at Apple out in the bay area before we lured him back to start our UX department.
The varying nature of the projects we do here necessitate different methodologies, processes, and teams. It is important to be able to define what process and skills a particular project warrants. A lot of the skills and methodologies being described in the UX wiki are not all exclusively owned by IAs and Interaction Designers at The Barbarian Group. The visual designers, flash artists, writers and creative leads on our projects make UX, IA and IxD design decisions all the time. The goal of the UX department here is to foster and grow more awareness around IA and IxD skills and methodologies and incorporate them into our design process and culture.
Broadly speaking, our UX department, like the company as a whole, follows processes around two different methodologies: waterfalling, and Agile. Each has its own process – and we’ll talk a bit more about this in the Processes and Methodologies section, below. We’ll just talk a bit here about some of the deliverables that come out of these processes, and what might be relevant to You.
At The Barbarian Group we put an emphasis on fostering a deep understanding of the people we create websites, products and services for. Over the years, companies have had various ways of framing and thinking about their customers – marketing segments, users, consumers, and demographics are a few words that represent these mindsets. As the creators of digital products and services we find ourselves in a position where marketing a competitive feature set to potential consumers is becoming an out-moded way of thinking. The more connected and savvy people become, the less effective strategies rooted in thinking of the customer as a “consumer,” “user” or “segment” are. In particular, on the web, the most successful sites are driven by a constantly evolving understanding of what people do, why they do “it”, and in what contexts “it” happens. In other words successful products are rooted in an understanding of peoples’ unique behaviors, motivations and contexts.
Lets look at the social web as an example of success driven by an understanding of the people using the products. Morgan Stanley points to social websites as the “hottest” and fastest growing area on the web. Applying the old strategies and ways of thinking may lead a company to believe that feature parity in the social space will lead to success. A feature-driven design strategy, if you will. There is an apparent demand for social features such as video sharing, photo sharing, profiles, friends lists, messaging, comments and so forth. A company by the name of Ning, in fact, makes it very easy and very cheap to support this kind of strategy. For nearly nothing, anyone can setup a feature rich social-network and augment it with a myriad of equally free widgets.
But is this what people really want? Is this the recipe for success and desirable experiences on the social web? In the vast majority of cases we don’t think so. Aside from the Myspaces and Facebooks of the social web, the majority of successful sites are focused on supporting a specific set of behaviors, motivations and contexts. For example Flickr, YouTube, Last.fm, Twitter, and Digg are some high profile cases. While they all may have user profiles and some incarnation of a friends list, their success is driven by how well they have understood, supported and continually listened to the behaviors, motivations and contexts of the people using their services. They obviously aren’t perfect, but they are all headed in the right direction – a departure from thinking of consumers as a market in need of feature parity and towards something that meets the focused and unique needs of individuals.
For any client dipping their toe in the social web or looking to create a product that builds upon their existing conversation with their customers, we recommend beginning with research. Until you fully understand and can empathize with the people you are trying to engage with, you won’t have a successful strategy. We have found a combination of traditional quantitative techniques and qualitative ethnographic techniques - such as contextual inquiry, observation and interviewing - are the key to design research that can meaningfully inform a strategy. Investing in this type of research leads to strategies that set you up, not only to come out of the gate with a unique and meaningful experience for your customers, but also to adapt as you learn more about them and how your product fits into their lives.

Here are some recent posts from our employees about User Experience:

Render any fonts in any browser...no flash?

A friend just IM’d me a link to a new type of cross-browser text replacement technique called typeface.js which allows for any HTML text element to be rendered in the font of your choice. Now the most common of these live-text to rendered replacement techniques is the awesome sIFR, but typeface.js is notable cause it’s only javascript.
At first I was about to write it off since the examples section of the project site shows images, but when I took some time (oh what has the internet done to our patience) to read through the background (and view source), I realized this is a pretty great and new approach to achieving this effect.
The javascript reads from the glyph information of any font you specify, which you need to add to your server after being converted using their conversion process(conversion), and then renders out the font using your browser’s vector drawing capabilities! Pretty rad indeed. Definitely something to keep your front-end eyes on.

Feedback Wanted: Social Bookmarking Buttons

Okay, so this is one of those things I’ve been thinking about a lot lately and figured the best way to get feedback was just to post it here …
You know those social bookmarking buttons that have become so ubiquitous on blogs and media sites? (Save to delicious, Digg this, Add to StumbleUpon, etc. icons) What do you think of them? Like them? Hate them? Think every site should include them? Think they’re a waste of space? Great usability? Terrible? Your opinions as an everyday user or a web professional are both welcome.
Also, has anyone seen any research about this? Are they an effective way to spread your content? Has Jakob Nielsen really not written about this yet?
I’m going to hold off on sharing my opinions so I don’t contaminate things. But please, let me know what you think, I’m really curious.

UX Should not be a silo

Should we be “Creating Products, not Experiences” or should We “Stop designing products”? Apparently Dan Saffer, author of Designing for Interaction, has left Adaptive Path to start his own firm called Kicker. One of Kicker’s first posts to it’s blog…

On this day, BW3 began.

Google has just announced their entry into the web browser arena (and has created a handy comic about what went into making it): Google Chrome.
While my first inclination was to moan and fret about the start of BW3 (not the chicken wing joint, but the third browser war), reading through some of the features and reasoning behind the endeavor changed my mind…and I’m curious how these innovations (a new Javascript engine? a Javascript Virtual Machine? Tabs on the OUTSIDE?) are gonna change things.

The Virgin Touch

During the last flight I had on Virgin America a passenger turned around to the person behind them and politely but firmly pointed out…

“Whatever you are doing is bouncing my seat!”

The women behind him replied…

“I am just trying to turn the volume down, sorry!”

I nerdily chortled to myself.

This is a pattern I see over and over again. The touch-screens on Virgin America’s entertainment system, “RED”, require a certain finesse that when not mastered result in a huge nuisance for the person sitting in front of you. Good luck if you get a kid behind you punching away at the touchscreen or a channel surfer changing channels the whole flight. In all Virgin America’s orchestrated experiential glory this design problem haunts nearly every flight I am on.

I can see the mental models and personas of the experience designers for the airline staring at passenger goals like…

  • peace&quiet
  • focus
  • comfort
  • relaxation
  • sleep

But what they didn’t catch is that their choice of user interface is essentially teaching people to push incessantly at their fellow passenger’s seats. A seat mounted In-flight touch-screen is the new kid kicking your seat. All of this was an interesting reminder of how these emerging natural user interfaces and touch user interfaces leave marks and make ripples in the physical world. So how do they fix it? Higher quality touch screens? Too expensive. I would wager mounting the touchscreen in a similar fashion to the tray table could work?

Take that, snarky consumer!

So I guess an owner of Tiger Woods Golf by Electronic Arts wanted to show a bug that was in the released version of the game by uploading to YouTube….EA got wind of this and posted a response to it, getting Mr. Woods himself to participate.
Pretty great that EA took the time to do this kind of thing.

Wireframes totally don't do what they're supposed to. But they are useful anyway.

I was sitting with my girlfriend in a hotel room in Connecticut a few weeks ago. We came down for a wedding, but like good citizens of the internet economy, we were both tele-working from the hotel room all afternoon before the wedding.
She had a call to present some wireframes she was working on (she works at another web firm) to present them to the team and talk them out before the client meeting. Then they strategized on how to handle the client meeting.
And when she got off the phone we were chatting about wireframes and presenting them to the client and how it NEVER goes well, and it just hit us:
Weren’t wireframes invented so that we could easily, rapidly present information architecture ideas to a client on paper, so that they could offer input prior to devs committing valuable resources to developing? So that we could “lock down” the functionality in advance? And doesn’t this NEVER WORK? I mean, sure. If you’ve got a strong internal team, or you’re working on software development with seasoned web people, then yeah, they work. But presenting to lay clients? They never get it. They need to see it designed. They need to see it clickable. It’s amazing how in all my years of being in web development, a good 80% of all my wireframe presentations have been to people who don’t know what they’re looking at, and don’t want to commit to functionality until they can see how it all works together. It’s a bit too extreme to say the exercise is pointless, but when I think of all the effort we expended on it, I’m tempted to say most of the time the exercise was futile. It’s almost as if wireframes can’t actually accomplish the thing we invented them to do.
It gets even worse when you throw agile into the mix, of course, because then you’re presenting these wireframes to the client and asking for changes now, so you don’t have to make them later, except we’re all in a methodology that allows for us to change them later. So why even show them?
And yet… and yet… internally, we are making more and more wireframes internally. We used to almost never make them internally, and now they’re invaluable, even in (or especially in) an agile process.
I have half a mind to stop showing wireframes to clients ever. I can hear our UX department freaking out. Ha. Don’t worry. I’m too old to be that radical. But it’s tempting.

One version of one vision of advertising

Okay, that last post was a little bit cranky, sorry about that. I suppose I should take the time to show you the positive side. To show you how we do things, how we work with our clients who are building online communities and products, and how it can be done right. This will also, conveniently, help explain to my mother what I do all day.
Let’s say that you are, in fact, the world’s leading authority on, say, orchids. Like you go to conferences and stuff, and thousands of people seek out your wisdom regarding orchids. Let’s then say that you, along with a friend, realize that there’s a substantial number of orchid aficionados out there and that, say, 90% of them use the internet. Let’s say you learned this at first anecdotally, but then, because your friend happened to be a bit of a research buff, you actually confirmed this with some research. Let’s say it transpires that there are 4 million orchid buffs out there on the web, and they happen to have a high disposable income, a predilection for spending time on the internet, and a genuine hunger for more wisdom, discussion, insight, learnings, entertainment, and, in short, content about orchids. And you are fully capable of providing this content because you’re one of an elite band of orchid experts, and they are already sending you weird postcards and stuff asking you questions, and then one day you started a blog and it was so weird because all of the sudden like 50,000 orchid lovers were reading it and you didn’t even put that much effort into it.
So then let’s say you and your friend write up a business plan explaining your vision for a new orchid lovers community site. You’ve done your research and your homework, and you’ve established that THE WORLD IS DYING FOR AN ORCHID COMMUNITY SITE. And you’ve figured out that you need about $3 million dollars to start this orchid community – and you’ve got all your costs worked out: site build, admin/CMS, editorial content and plan, maintenance and continued development, staffing plan, ad sales plan, ad operations plan, etc. And it just so happens that your friend’s college roommate is a VC at some firm on Sand Hill Road and he looks over your plan, and makes modifications here and there but generally is on board with the plan because they’d been doing some research too and realized that this is a golden market – affluent, niche, hard-to-reach, etc. And you have another orchid lover friend who works at a media agency and is like “yes! we’ve got like 15 clients that would love to reach this demographic and I know my friend sally at MediaVest has the same problems.”
So you all shake hands and start a company and the VC writes a check for $3 million and it’s time to go. LET’S DO THIS. WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. WE’RE GOING TO REVOLUTIONIZE THE WORLD OF ORCHID GROWING.
What now?
Well, this is what you do. You find a CTO. Then you hire some developers or an agency to build your site. Then you hire another firm to handle the information architecture and user experience. And maybe you hire one of those two firms, or another firm, to handle the site design. And of course this needs to be tied into the branding, so then you gotta hire a branding firm to develop your site’s branding. And then you have to figure out a marketing plan for when you actually launch the site. Oh, and along the way you need to hire someone to develop a content strategy, and someone else to figure out the editorial calendar, and probably someone to sell the ads, and someone else to deploy all those banner ads to the site and manage the inventory. And you need to choose an analytics package. And an ad operations package. And maybe you have some e-commerce and need a fulfillment partner. And what about mobile? You’ll end up with probably 3-4 hires, and then something like 4 firms all working on your site. Because you want the best. Who’s the best development firm? Okay, let’s get them. Who’s the best User Experience firm? We sent RFPs to Molecular and Adaptive Path and a few others. Who’s the best design firms? Sent out RFPs to Pentagram (wait do they do interactive?) and those cool kids up in Canada that did Digg and 37 Signals. Wait are they designers or UX? We sent RFPs to Ogilvy and Landor and a few specialized one-person shops for the branding, and we’re definitely gonna call the Barbarians for the marketing. Because they did that Subservient Chicken thing and it was awesome.
So now you have something like 5 different firms and 4 different people working on this, and they all sort of want some part of the other firms’ business, but not others, cuz they all do one or two things and have these mandates to grow their business with additional work from their pre-existing clients. It’s like their business plan or something.
And each of these firms is on a different engagement timeline, with different deliverables, and none of the deliverables are making you the greatest possible product and successfully launching it through an integrated strategy that coordinates content, editorial, pre and post-launch development, user experience and marketing. And there’s no coordination, really, except for the CTO on the technical side (if you’ve been lucky enough to find one yet), and the content editor you hired and your friend from the media company you lured away with some equity. And you. The orchid lover
It is, in short, like herding cats. And, worse, it is painfully sequential, or “waterfall.” The branding firm needs to finish the branding before the design firm can get started. The design firm can’t get started until the UX team has really dug in, and the tech guys can’t do much until you’ve hired your CTO and chosen a platform and some basic requirements have been identified and maybe a few wireframes have been built. And all of this will completely distract you from the marketing of your new site once it’s launched, and you’re still not sure who you’re going to hire to keep developing on the site once its launched, because let’s face it, there aren’t a lot of developers out there who also love orchids and there’s only so much equity to go around and don’t all developers really just want to work at Facebook?
You could, of course, hire all of these people internally. Give ‘em equity in the company, and try and instill a spirit of camaraderie in them. Or you could find one development partner, get the thing built, hope it takes off and then build the business around it (this seems to be the logic of the young turks on the New York scene: Tumblr, Muxtape, Iminlikewithyou, etc).
But wouldn’t it be cool if there was one company you could hire to do all of that for you? That you could work out a deal with to be your partner, before and after launch, and got the right team together from all of these disciplines, and all worked in tandem, in an agile, responsive, nimble manner, with all disciplines working in tandem for a common goal? You handle the internet, I’ll handle the orchids Wouldn’t it be cool if they chose the tech based on not just what’s best for the job but based on what made it easiest to help you in your CTO search? So you could get going even before you found them? Wouldn’t it be cool if some great marketing idea could influence the user experience? Wouldn’t it be cool if the UX guys had an awesome idea they knew exactly whether the development gals could handle it and what the process was for getting this unexpected brainstorm done, because doing it will make the product better? Because everyone wants the product to be better?
This is, in short, the service we have been growing to offer to these people now. All things in the service to interactive marketing. 20 developers. Dozens of creatives. Marketers. Planners. A fast-growing, talented and battle-hardened user experience department, all of whom have embraced agile methodologies and have extensive experience on real sites and real communities. Designers who love to iterate. Even the client service gang is in on the mix, acting as your Scrum-certfied product owner, translating your business decisions into concrete tasks for the team. UX people who understand that it’s not just about usability but emotion and marketing and users becoming wed to your site. And marketing people who haven’t gotten jaded because they know they have a stake in the actual product they’re marketing, and knowing that if their genius marketing idea is that oh-so-common idea of make the product better that they could actually make it happen.
I don’t think we’re 100% there yet: bringing Noah on board was a key element in reinforcing the strategy and planning angle of it. And we’re taking agile development into places that it was never really intended to go: who, for the love of god, has ever actually attempted agile branding? But I do believe that we’re on to something, and I think our clients are pretty into it as well. I can’t wait until this fall when we start having things to show to put our money where our mouth is on this front. But I definitely believe in it. And I have faith enough that I’m talking about it now. Because, really, it’s all I talk about anymore. ;)
(oh, and it’s not just for startups. We work this way with tech companies offering new products. With consumer product companies wanting to extend their brand onto the web in a truly connecting way via branded utilities, communities or content. But this metaphor is a good time so I’m gonna roll with it).
I see so many sites being launched that are awesome technological demos. They have pretty solid PR too (and, as an aside, it’s almost an embarrassment for the ad world that the PR world seems to have figured out this whole internet thing more quickly than them). They get their awesome product and they do some awesome PR and they get a mention on Tech Crunch and they get a nice spike in traffic the first week and then… What? Things stall. Why don’t they do any marketing then? Why doesn’t Dopplr market? Why doesn’t Vimeo? Who doesn’t Hulu? That’s a really interesting one. Basically they all seem to be hoping that the launch push will take hold and and turn into a Twitter-like network effect. And if it doesn’t? Well, they seem to toss it out and move on. Fair enough, I suppose. If you’re looking to score an online hit no matter what the content or product. But if you’re invested in a certain topic – be it your future as an orchid expert or your brand’s very reason to exist in the 21st century – you need to succeed this time, in this field. So, if you’re in it for the long haul, why not market?
I believe our brains, bruised from the web 1.0 world and embracing of the web 2.0’s ethos of fail “fast, fail cheap” have caused us to develop a few subconscious mores and taboos. Why don’t more startups market anymore? Partially because the people behind the startup are not committed to its success – they can move on if it fails. But I believe it’s also because of all the profligate spending during the Web 1.0 world, and because Web 2.0 is about staying cheap to achieve rapid profitability. Fair enough. But Web 2.0 brought other trends to bear along with staying cheap. Viral marketing. Word of Mouth. Gimmicky little games. The tactics have changed, but marketing can still work. Marketing can still drive traffic to your site. And if your site is good enough, that traffic can expand exponentially.
Web 2.0 showed us something else, too: user experience is marketing. Your feature set is marketing. Think Google maps. Why did it win? Because of an amazing new feature set (ie., AJAX). The lines are blurring a bit. It gets tricky. It can be argued that Google Maps won because it was a superior product offering, simple as that. Facebook could say the same. I would absolutely agree with that. But I would also say that this implies that a unique, improved user interface can drive traffic far beyond just the individuals who discover it. When people are pleasantly surprised by an amazing product on the web, they tell their friends about it. Marketing. And, once you’ve got this superior product, driving traffic to it using other marketing tactics – viral marketing, advergaming, etc – just like you do with your PR can be a huge advantage. It doesn’t have to be a super bowl ad. It doesn’t even have to be an online media buy. But marketing is a tool to be used here, especially when it’s done in perfect synchronicity to the dev and the UX, and you don’t have ‘the marketing guys’ sitting in the corner not grasping your product. When you have marketing peeps who were there every step of the way. Who are as invested as you are in the product’s success.