Pat’s Point of View

…choose to literally cut and paste (well, ‘stick’ at least) your document together.

Lately I’ve been wrangling a research report into shape and I’m finding it so much easier to just print stuff out, cut it up, organise and rearrange it, then stick it together with sticky tape. Then I’ll go back and edit the document electronically.

Alternative titles for this blog could have been “You know you’re getting old when you…” or “You know you’ve been playing craft and colouring-in with your kids when you…”. (Actually that last one is very apt since I have been loving colouring in with my daughters lately!)

Have you ever noticed how car designers can really screw things up when they create a new ‘generation’ of a model? Quite often there’s a serious fuglification factor involved.

It’s like the old adage “never buy version 1.0 of a Microsoft product”, it sometimes takes a few updates/facelifts before the new generation achieves a balanced, harmonious look. And sometimes it never does, just stays plain fugly.

Here are five examples. (I’ll admit up-front, some of these vehicles weren’t absolute stunners before fuglification but they were at least adequate, even handsome.)

Mazda 3: 1st Gen to 2nd Gen

Definitely a case of a lovely looking car hit with the fugly stick. Especially the hot MPS version, which is a real shame. The 2nd gen is bigger (which I think is a running theme here in this list) but looks gangly and is smiling like a doofus. Fail.

Nissan X-Trail: 1st Gen to 2nd Gen

OK when I said some of these cars weren’t that great looking before, I was talking about the X-Trail. The first version wasn’t pretty, but the second is fugly. And bulbous…it’s got a big arse.

Subaru Liberty: 4th Gen to 5th Gen

Ahh the 4th gen Liberty, a really elegant design. But they had to make it fugly with the introduction of the lunchbox styling of the latest model. Sure it’s bigger, allowing Subaru to compete with the large sedans, wagons and SUVs in the family market, but it looks bad. I feel ill.

Holden Commodore: 3rd Gen to 4th Gen

The VZ was a refined evolution of the 3rd generation shape, a very nice looking vehicle. The VE that replaced it may be technically superior (it’s a “billion dollar design” after all) but it’s fugly. The HSV models based on the VE are much better looking, but the standard models look misshapen and boxy. I was disappoint.

Toyota Hilux: 6th Gen to 7th Gen

Where I grew up, real men drove a Hilux. Preferably a 4WD dual cab version. And the 6th generation were nice a design. But they got well and truly fuglified with the next model, especially the 2WD versions which look tubby and moronic. You’d look a right berk doing donuts in a paddock in one of those!

Almost three years ago I wrote stop calling it usability testing, essentially making the argument that the term “usability testing” has a lot of baggage and gets mistaken for other things.

I still don’t like using the term in most cases, and I’ll explain why. But in the intervening years I have come up with an alternative, which I’d like to share with you. Within the UX team here at NDM, I’ve been referring to user sessions as CIDeR (Collaborative Iterative Design Refinement) sessions. I’ve had some success in convincing my team-mates and the term is starting to permeate out into the business.

Why CIDeR?

Typically our users are involved in our design process by way of a series of one-on-one sessions where users are shown stimuli of some kind, to elicit feedback. The purpose is to guide the design process and allow decisions to be made (usually) regarding the user interface. Successive rounds are used to allow the design to evolve based on user feedback, in effect making users collaborators in the design process.

Hence the name:

• Collaborative – The user is an integral part of the process, as are our colleagues from other disciplines. This word also helps break down the ‘UX guy is expert’ and ‘participant is lab rat’ dynamic that can accumulate.
• Iterative – The approach works best if it’s a process of constantly evolving the design or the idea. This word helps convey to the business that this isn’t a one shot deal, there will be several rounds of user involvement, with some thinking and designing in between.
• Design – Typically these sessions are for the purpose of producing something tangible, whether it’s designing a website or a concept. This word grounds the name/description.
• Refinement – We are working towards producing something. In conjunction with ‘iterative’ this word impresses upon people the fact this is a process, and in conjunction with ‘design’ it gives a sense of progress.

Oh, and of course there’s the added benefit of being able to say “let’s have some CIDeR and think it through” when the team reaches an impasse or isn’t sure how to proceed.

We involve users in our process in many other ways, from up-front ethnographic research through to large quantitative market research, and lots of things in between, but the bread and butter would be the CIDeR sessions. Hence it’s important for us to be clear what this work is and what it delivers—to our team but also to our business.

Why not “usability testing”?

There are four problems with the term usability testing as a label for the type of work done in a CIDeR session, some of which are refinements of the point I made last time:

• Promises conclusive, definitive results – The term sounds too absolute. As you’d expect from “testing”, after all other types of testing deliver conclusiveness or they’re considered a failure.
• Implies a focus on just the UI and usability – Much of what we do is more than usability of the user interface. We’re digging deeper, talking through preferences, perceptions. Part of this is due to the fact that for news products, the content is as much a part of the interface as the buttons, links, labels and code.
• Suggests summative application – To many people, when you say “usability testing” they think that’s something to be done at the end, a validation exercise to make sure we can go live. This isn’t at all the case for most of the work our team does, which is more about exploration over time; a fluid process rather than check-list item.
• Coloured by past experience – Any term that has been around for a while, and widely misunderstood or misused, will be horribly tainted by the experience stakeholders have had with things labelled with that term. This is certainly the case with “usability testing”. I often see this as a tendency towards quant; people expect task failure rates, ‘time on task’ and other rigid measurements and won’t give up on those kinds of outputs from our work. Again, these are rarely the things we are looking to obtain.

Don’t get me wrong, if you practice a method that does live up to all of these things, and you call it usability testing, good on you. Our team rarely does, so I don’t want to set an expectation in the minds of my stakeholders that that is what they’re going to get. We needed a new name.

How does CIDeR work with other techniques?

The CIDeR approach is qualitative and indicative, rather than conclusive. Which means that some findings (ie opinions, perceptions, propensity to buy/use) may not be representative of the larger population, and as such it is necessary to:

1. exercise care in taking these findings on board, using them in the right way, and
2. make use of quantitative methods, either before or after CIDeR, to determine the implications for the broader audience.

Sometimes a more formal method for involving users in the design process is used, which we do call “usability testing”. A more rigorous approach is taken to assessing how easily users are able use a given design, typically later in the design process. Because this technique is dealing strictly with usability, it is acknowledged that relatively small sample sizes (~5) can be used to draw conclusions about the usability of the design for the entire audience.

Questioning regarding opinions or propensity to buy/use, however, do require larger sample sizes. So, alongside both the CIDeR and “usability testing” methods, quantitative research may also be employed, typically to gauge reactions to a product proposition or design. This focuses more on supporting decision making at a product level as opposed to the design or user interface level.

“Pour me a glass!” or “Ewww that’s left a bitter taste”?

What do you think of the name CIDeR? Would you use it in place of the term usability testing? Why or why not? All feedback greatly appreciated.

(Originally posted to the USiT blog, reproduced here with some minor alterations)

My colleague Angus Fraser recently gave The Claw a good workout on some mobile site testing in Brisbane. The screenshot below shows the output of the two webcams side-by-side, viewed in a neat piece of software called AMCap. The two AMCap windows, and the audio from one of the webcams, was recorded and broadcast to observers using GotoMeeting.

There’s nothing like some real world feedback to improve a product, and Angus was most helpful in this regard. Besides the introduction of AMCap, Angus pointed out that the webcam mounting solution wasn’t the best. The original screws from the webcam base were too short to make it all the way through the perspex and securely hold the webcam, even with the countersinking. So I’ve enhanced the design by using meatier screws (wood screws actually) that are longer than the original and with wider thread to really bite into the plastic of the webcam. Note this is a destructive enhancement, the new screws will wreck the hole for the original screws and you’ll no longer be able to attach the webcam’s circular desk stand.

The new screws also have bigger heads that a normal screwdriver will drive (not requiring a jeweller’s screwdriver like the original screws). So not only are the webcams held nice and securely, but it’s easier to undo and move them.

The other enhancement Angus suggested was to use ‘velcro’ on the handset, so it can be taken off the Claw for setup changes, but then securely re-attached. The ‘velcro’ strips are Command Picture Hanging Strips (annoyingly, they don’t refer to them as ‘velcro’).

I also tied the two USB cables for the webcams together with cable ties, making them less messy when using the Claw.

The Claw is evolving!

(Originally posted to the USiT blog, reproduced here with some minor alterations)

I want to show off the work of my two budding artists. The yellow piece above, illustrated by Grace, shows “people”. Grace has developed a definite, if eerie, style and her people always look very consistent. She’s never seen “The Tripods” or “War of The Worlds” by the way.

Evangeline’s piece is a faithful rendering of “circles and up and down lines”. With some help from mum, Evie’s repertoire is growing, and by the time she’s two I think we might see a square or oblong (a word that is sure to make her giggle).

OK, pop quiz:

1. I’m going to be a lot busier as of next year
2. Good things come in threes
3. Both of my daughters will be big sisters
4. I’m glad I bought a 7 seat car

The correct answer is e. All of the above!

I’m so happy to tell you all that in February, my wife and I will be having our third child! We’ve always planned to have three kids and have been blessed yet again, so we couldn’t be happier. It’s going to really take things up a notch, I really am going to be busy. But hey, they say that after two you don’t really notice the extra burden :) (shhh, i don’t care if they be were sarcastic or it was some cruel inside joke!)

[Photo credit: N-ino]

The ominous black shape featured in last week’s “Guess that object” post is in fact my take on a mobile device usability testing jig, inspired by the work of Kirk Henry of Lokion Interactive (via Harry Brignull). I’ve been working on this device to help with testing site and app designs on mobile phones and tablets. Quite often these contraptions are called a sled but I’ve been calling this one “The Claw”, for hopefully obvious reasons.

Its purpose is to allow you to get a good view of the screen of a mobile device—handset or tablet—as well as the user’s face, during usability testing (or any other activity that you’d like to see what’s happening while someone uses a mobile device. Using software such as TechSmith Morae 3.0, you can easily record from both cameras.
Read the rest of this entry »

What is this a photograph of?

The answer will be revealed shortly, along with a full explanation.

(Note: you NDM folks are disqualified from entering!)

I’m about a week or so shy of having not posted to this blog for 6 months! A lot has been going on. I’ve been through a lot personally, while working on some pretty big projects at work. There’s been good and there’s been bad, but things are definitely looking much better now.

Hopefully I’ll be able to blog a few things soon, when I have a spare few moments.

Yesterday my wife gave me the most fantastic early Christmas present, laser eye surgery. It’s given me a new perspective on, well…everything!

I look forward to seeing you properly for the first time.