Archive Page 2

Men live in Boxes, Women in balls of Wire

A few days ago Whitney Hess, a good friend of mine, tweeted:

“I firmly believe that anyone who talks about having “work/life balance” has no life and doesn’t love their work”

This was followed by a short twitter conversation (a twersation?) between several people about kids, family and compartmentalization. The fact of the matter is, of course, that people think differently – it’s actually wired into their brains.

Now before I go any further, a warning: I’m going to talk about men’s brains and women’s brains. There are going to be generalizations, but I do not believe (contrary to the title of this post) that all men or all women think alike. I think it more likely that there are patterns of thinking that anyone can exhibit, it may just be more likely that women will tend toward one pattern more often and men to another.

In this video Mark Gungor speaks (humorously) about men’s brains being full of little boxes, with one topic in each box and the boxes never touching. Women’s brains, he continues, are more like balls of wire, with every thing connected to every other thing and emotion running along the wires. This is why, he contends, men can only do one thing at a time and why women can multi-task and remember everything. (The video is well worth watching for the laugh!)

It turns out that there may even be scientific evidence (this is now my own conjecture) to support this:

“The connections between the two sides of women’s brains enable them, on average, to be better at expressing emotions and remembering details of emotional events and communicating them. They use language to talk about feelings and develop consensus more efficiently than men do. Men’s brains, more specifically organized and with fewer connections, enable men, on average, to focus more intensely and not be as distracted by superfluous information.”

Suppose that a “Wire Thinker” (man or woman!) was shopping for a car. As they’re looking at cars and specifications, might they be (subconsciously) influenced by the context of their family, their job, pleasant memories of cars in the past, just about anything in fact?

Contrast this with a “Box Thinker” (man or woman!). They would be in their “car box”, which is not connected to their “family box”, or “good times box”. Might they be more focused on the task at hand? At looking at specifications and features? Less emotionally connected?

So men and women aside – perhaps there are “Box Thinkers” and “Wire Thinkers” (or times when a person thinks box-like and wire-like), and perhaps this accounts for some people’s inclination to separate or conflate their home and work lives – neither of which is right or wrong of course.

If there is any truth in this, the question becomes – how can we design experiences that resonate with both types of thinking?

 

Advertisements

A User Experience is greater than the sum of it’s Touchpoints

Last week, after a conversation with a colleague, I tweeted “A User Experience is greater than the sum of it’s Touchpoints”. It seemed such an intuitive statement, but almost immediately after hitting [Enter] I started to ask myself “what on earth does that really mean?”. Since it was retweeted quite a lot I thought i’d better spend some time thinking about it!

Space Time; the Final Frontier; As User Experience professionals we expend so much effort on the visual (layout, navigation, aesthetics, etc.) we sometimes forget that our users experience things over time. Whether a few seconds – page to page, or a few weeks – visit to visit, the time between touchpoints causes things to happen to memory which changes the context of the next (and subsequent) touchpoints.

Human memory; Users may remember or forget particularly good or bad interactions, changing the context and their perception of the next touchpoint, a perception they would not have if they only interacted with that single touchpoint.

Computer memory; The system may remember or forget information from one touchpoint to the next (usernames, reference numbers, last items viewed, last state, etc.), changing the context of the experience (for good or bad) from that which they would have experienced if they had only interacted with that single touchpoint.

The takeaway? Do what Kirk did to Khan, but go one better – think in the 4th dimension, time.

A new chapter: Leaving the good ship Vanguard

After 13 years in various User Experience roles at Vanguard I have decided to leave to pursue a new opportunity. I enjoyed my time there, I made a lot of good friends, and I learned a lot – the most important thing being the importance of an organization’s mission, it’s reason for being, WHY it exists.

While looking for a new opportunity it became clear to me that i’d consumed enough Vanguard “client-owned” kool aid that I would struggle to work in an organization that focused mainly on making money for it’s owners or stock holders. I was open to moving away from the financial services field – in fact I thought I would have to – I used to joke with friends that there was really only one other financial services organization that I could work for, since they were also required by their corporate structure to put the interests of their clients first.

That organization is USAA, and fortunately for me they thought I could add value to their talented UX team. I’ll be joining them in late July as Assistant Vice President of User Experience. See you in San Antonio!

Using the Characteristics & Principles of UX

So a couple of years ago I made this diagram/poster thing because, well, apparently that’s what I do. I liked it enough to present it at the IA Summit, I even created a separate blog for the idea, but I could never really find a real-world project to apply it to.

Well, I found one. We’re starting a large “blue sky” design project at work and we’re in need of some UX principles – so I thought i’d dust the Characteristics & Principles of UX off, rework the diagram slightly to include everything on one page and see if it works “in the wild”.

I’ll let you know how it goes.

The Characteristics & Principles of UX (8MB PDF because of screenshots)

 

Unfriendly’s, or: How to offend all 5 senses

I went on a date on Sunday, and not with my wife.

I took our 3 1/2 year old daughter for dinner at a local Friendly’s restaurant that I hadn’t eaten at for a couple of years. Either my memory is failing, or this particular Friendly’s has gone seriously downhill. They tried very hard to turn what should have been a pleasant 45 minutes with my wonderful daughter into a 1 1/2 hour assault on the senses.

Hearing: While I appreciated the Christmas music, I did not appreciate the mildly offensive language some of the staff were using in their (many) casual conversations with one another.

Sight: The restaurant was dirty and run-down. Many of the staff were unkempt.

Touch: The sticky table and booth seating had clearly not been wiped thoroughly.

Smell: The section of the restaurant we were in actually had a faint smell of urine!

Taste: The entree I had (soup and sandwich) actually wasn’t bad (for Friendly’s), however, the soda was bordering on flat and the ice cream sundae was obviously thrown together – all of the ice cream on the bottom and all of the brownie on top.

And as a bonus …

Time: The waitress was awful. We waited 25 minutes before ordering, she didn’t stop at all to see if we were okay or needed more drinks, we even had to order our sundaes from another waitress because she went AWOL for so long.

In my opinion, Friendly’s need to do some more quality control and think a little more about their customer experience.

The only redeeming factor of this particular Friendly’s was that my adorable daughter was in it.

Update (12/27/2011): Kudos to Friendly’s for seeing my tweet & blog post and for following up. Today I received a $10 Friendly’s gift card in the mail, should I return to the Pottstown Friendly’s to give them a follow-up report?

Qwikster: What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate

If Netflix had given as much thought to their change management & communication strategy as they (historically) did to their overall user experience they could have been successful in their Qwikster spin-off.

I say that as someone who has spent the last 9 months focusing on designing change management experiences. It’s been an eye-opening adventure! Typically i’ve been focused on designing enduring experiences, mainly websites, for people to use from now to the end of time. Focusing instead on transient experiences intended to help people overcome changes to something they use a lot, know and love brings different challenges. I’ve spent a lot of time combining traditional UX tools (personas, content inventories, task analysis, etc.) with newer techniques like KANO analysis to …

  1. Build a catalog of the changes.
  2. Understand how each change will be perceived by each persona.
  3. Position how we would like each change to be perceived.
  4. Design a cross-channel experience to communicate the changes (before, during and after they happen).
However, all this takes a lot of thought. If Netflix had gone through a process like this I think they could have achieved their goals without upsetting as many people and without ultimately having to back down.

Is Netflix intentionally culling it’s DVD customers?

“Screw you, i’m going to cancel my DVD subscription and just have streaming!”

“You idiots, i’m going to cancel my subscription altogether!”

These are the types of comments streaming in from Netflix subscribers all over the country because of the latest price changes and the divorce of streaming from the DVD service. Everyone with a blog or twitter account is pointing out that Netflix is going to lose customers hand over fist.

But wait – perhaps that’s exactly what Netflix wants.

What if they’ve figured out that the cost of running the “DVDs by mail” business is too high and they cannot continue to support it? What if they’ve figured out that they have to change the company to a streaming-only model? What if they’ve figured out that they have to do it quickly to survive? What if they would rather have 15 million streaming-only customers than 25 million streaming-and-DVD ones?

Please understand, i’m not advocating the way they structured or communicated the changes, i’m just pointing out that Netflix is a public company that has to do what’s best for its investors. If they said “we have to do this or go out of business in 5 years”, would it be any more palatable for their customers? Sometimes radical problems need radical solutions – perhaps this is one of them?

[disclaimer – I am not a Netflix customer, so i’m not feeling the anger and resentment that everyone else is!]