“To design an easy-to-use interface, pay attention to what users do, not only what they say. Self-reported claims are unreliable, as are user speculations about future behavior.” (Jakob Nielsen – Alertbox)

User experience, or UX, highlights the subjective experiential perceptions that come along with human-computer-interaction, or HCI, and product ownership. ISO 9241-210 defines user experience as “a person’s perceptions and responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service”. The term itself was brought to wider knowledge by Donald Norman in the mid-1990s just as recent advances in computing technologies moved HCI into practically all areas of human activity. UX planning goes beyond fixing usability issues of a user interface design. In order to properly conduct UX planning one has to begin with the user. We need to take into account what they say, do and the decisions they make. According to Jesse James Garrett “User Experience is not about how a product works on the inside. User experience is about how it works on the outside, where a person comes into contact with it and has to work with it”

UX is about maximizing design and research in such a way that positive experiences occur at the intersection where users come into contact with your product. Experiences are momentary and brief, sometimes isolated and sometimes part of a multi-layered process. The customer always acts in the present influenced by former experiences, knowledge, abilities, and preferences. Forthcoming experiences, expectations and hopes also influence the present as users ebb and flow on a river of experience. The goal of UX is to meet a user’s exact needs without fuss creating products that embody simplicity and elegance, making them a joy to use. Achieving this requires a seamless merging of the services of multiple disciplines, including engineering, marketing, graphical and industrial design, and interface design. This requires teamwork and collaboration across an entire team.

With UX design the whole team has to take the users’ views of a graphical user interface design and ask themselves if their product fulfills all of Peter Morville’s “Facets of the User Experience”:

1.    Is the application useful for the individual user and his specific task?

2.    Is the application usable for the individual user and his specific task?

3.    Is the application desirable for the individual user and his specific task?

4.    Is the application valuable for the individual user and his specific task?

5.    Is the application accessible, i.e. available to every individual user, regardless of disability?

6.    Is the target findable for the individual user and his specific task?

7.    Is the application credible for the individual user and his specific task?

UX thrives on the iterative development process that begins with the basic strategy where proof of concept is established via Information Architecture, usability testing of prototypes (e.g. wireframes) and interface design until a detail concept is birthed. While working towards a detailed concept it is important to quickly come up with a rough concept as that allows for experimentation and rapid iterative evaluations of use cases and proposed interface design alternatives.

In order to facilitate a whole team’s involvement in UX design the target user has to be the centerpiece, like the Sun in our solar system. If a profile of the target user is not to be had then scenarios of use or workflows will suffice.  Developing a persona(s) of a target user, as well as the environment that precludes them, allows all members of your team to visualize how to use their respective attributes and strengths synergistically in creating a winning interface design or other product. Good UX, just like a good team, is about the sum being greater than the parts with the real ‘architects’ of an interface design being the target user.

Folders in the sidebar now employ a heading-collapsing mechanism. There is a clear disconnect in having all other applications and folders one-way and little ol’ iTunes another. Surely Apple must have conducted usability testing, for example employing wireframe prototypes. Or would they not? The issue of color-coding the sidebar might not have come into play early in the design process, especially when using more low-fidelity wireframes. The orientation of the close/minimize/zoom buttons would have though. Although the exact reason why the interface design team made these decisions is not published, these choices are bound to start debate in interface design circles. It could be that we may be taking a sneak peak at the ideas being bounced around at Apple for future implementation in the interface design of the next version of Mac OS X.

Aside from contradicting interface design convention and to its credit, the new vertical orientation does have some merit from a usability perspective. The close/minimize/zoom buttons are now more isolated from the media control buttons thus reducing the chance of clicking the wrong one. However for this orientation to really catch on other programs will have to adopt it as a convention.
“If it ain’t broken. Don’t try and fix it.”

Here, Apple run the risk of alienating users but considering their penchant for innovation on their own terms (and smiling all the way to the bank while at it) it is a risk that could pay dividends. Microsoft Office 2007 is a great example of how radical changes to a tried, tested and beloved interface design can pay-off despite the risk. Vista on the other hand… well we all know it wasn’t quite the home run Redmond hoped it would be. Apple’s image is no longer that of the little engine that could. It is arguably the 21st century’s Microsoft and as such has to guard itself against becoming seen as a bumbling giant. Other positive interface design changes worth noting are that the volume slider bar and the album cover artwork frame are bigger now. As a result the volume is now easier to manipulate, possibly catering to an aging audience. Double-clicking the artwork opens a pop-up with an even bigger picture complete with media, volume and resizing controls that appear when you hover the mic over it. Please che
ck back on this blog for a look at the new Ping music social network.

According to Giovanni Calabro’s article “Top 10 tools to measure user experience” (pragmaticmarketing.com) UX can be divided into a hierarchy within which each organization or designer falls into one of three categories:

1.    Stage 1  – General Knowledge: This stage of UX knowledge indicates that the designer or organization has little understanding of their users beyond general assumptions about what the users want, think, and need.  Thus, this level of understanding of the user is very broad and does not lend itself well to interface design evolution based on what users want and need. Instead, it is a simple way of brainstorming and predicting what users might want and what they trend towards.

2.    Stage 2 – Understand User Behavior: This second level of UX understanding means that you or your company are now employing testing methods, such as usability tests, to ascertain UX information from clients and/or users in order to design interfaces accordingly or make the necessary changes to your existing interface design.  This is a level that all organizations should try to achieve if they are serious about usability and UX success.

3.    Stage 3 – Influence Your Users: This is the stage in which you not only determine what users want to make a system functional, but also what they want to make a particular interface design interesting or unique.  In this stage, you have developed a process of measuring UX feedback to the point where you know how to craft systems that are unique and will entice users; you are influencing them to use your site for more than just functional purposes.

The UX hierarchy that Calabro introduces shows that if you are serious about interface design, then you definitely want to make it your or your organization’s goal to reach the third level.  You want to generally understand your users, specifically understand your users, and ultimately influence your users relative to your interface design.

Maintaining a UX frame of mind

According to Joseph C Lawrence’s article “Five reasons why user experience thinking is essential” there are five important “UX mantras” that every designer should keep in mind when designing a user interface (as paraphrased below):

1.    UX design is about the users: Keeping the users at the center of your interface design will allow you to create websites and applications that aren’t just characterized by functionality, but also by individuality based on what users want and need beyond the structure of a site—sometimes a basic, functional structure is too boring.
2.    UX design requires testing: UX testing will help you learn not only how users interact with your site, but also how they want to interact with your site.  Thus, you will be able to analyze the feedback and make the changes necessary to infuse your interface design with individuality.
3.    UX design is psychological in nature: Websites are dynamic and intertwined with almost every interaction in our daily lives whether it is socializing, traveling, or shopping etc. Since the web is now such an integral part of the way people live personally and professionally, interface designs must now be more than a collection of pages and data—they must be designed understanding the psychology of what motivates people to perform the interactions facilitated by websites and applications.  UX design allows designers to gather this vital information.
4.    UX design is a harmonizing force: UX design can tie together all of the diverging goals of web users and designers in order to create a unique and usable interface design.  Understanding how users use an application and what users want gives designers and other stakeholders the information required so they can tailor their business goals and methods to the needs of the user without jeopardizing their own enterprise.
5.    UX design is an interdisciplinary method: The dynamic and integrated nature of today’s websites and apps requires web developers to understand not only computer software and programming but also an assortment of other fields: psychology, business, and marketing to name a few.  UX design transcends into all of these fields because users are human and humans are by nature interdisciplinary.

Using Lawrence’s “UX mantras” can help you keep your focus on the users which will ultimately distinguish your site from others that are similar, increasing your interface design’s popularity and success.  The better you understand your users and their needs, the more seamless the process of using your website or application becomes for them. This makes users happy and they will want to use your site above others because it is designed to understand what they want and respond to their needs.

The vast array of websites and applications created for similar purposes (i.e. amazon.com and Ebay are both eCommerce sites) force web designers to envision new ways of making their interface designs distinct to differentiate themselves; if a given user interface design is distinct then chances are users will pick that website or application above all others.  This is why UX design is quickly becoming one of the most important methods of development for web designers.  Web designers are learning that they need to approach their development process not just from a usability frame of mind, but also from a UX frame of mind. While usability is undoubtedly king of the interface design court, UX design is quickly becoming the king’s closest advisor because it gives designers the capacity to differentiate one similar interface design from another by responding to the exclusive needs and wants of the user.

The financing of this interface design project has been undertaken by Microsoft Austria. What this means is that this form of accessing the service is only available to users of Internet Explorer. From Microsoft Austria’s standpoint this is a relatively cheap way of boosting Internet Explorer’s 35% market share (according to the Wikinomics blog) in the country as well as a PR stunt. This, however, shuts off Mac and Linux users completely from this tiny bit of interface design innovation, as well as urging users of other browsers to switch allegiance. The toolbar itself is great and I can’t help but feel a wee-bit jealous at the Austrians for having such a great service with great usability.

The toolbar, with big clearly marked buttons, itself is found at the top of the interface design below the Address Field but above the Tab bars. It is itself distinct in the same red and white colors of the Austrian flag. The colors also add to the legibility of the text. The toolbar has its own search bar on the left of the interface design unlike the top right customary search bar of the browser itself. This, I think, is a good touch because it serves to further distinguish it as not being the same as full internet search but rather specific. Clicking on a service in the toolbar automatically launches it in a new tab leaving your hitherto browsing unaffected. The challenge now for the Austrian government is to work on incorporating their services into the interface designs of other browsers that work with different operating systems. Hopefully other governments will be close by behind them.

How to test expert users

Usability testing expert users isn’t drastically different from testing novice users (you can still use card sorting and other standard methods), but one thing that is important is pre-usability test preparations.  Here are a couple of things to keep in mind when beginning the usability testing process with expert users:

1.    Make sure that expert testers comprise a demographic most consistent with and important to your interface design.
2.    Make sure the tasks are realistic and relevant based on how your users have previously employed the site.
3.    Try to obtain user information concerning what expert users have liked about the site in its previous form and what they haven’t like.  You can later compare their answers with the way they responded to the changes that you have made to the interface design after conducting the usability test.

Bottom line: Don’t forget about the dedicated experts!

If you have an evolving website that has accumulated a reasonable amount of success in the cut throat world of the internet, then it is worth testing your core users, your expert users when conducting usability tests on new interface design additions or changes.  They are the ones who have used your site in the past and they are the ones who will bolster it into the future.

In a bid to usurp Google as the world’s most popular search engine Microsoft’s Bing has been continuously updated in the past couple of months. And it would seem that Google is taking notice if its introduction of a Bing-like background picture to its interface design is anything to go by. Bing’s interface design is attracting the sincerest form of flattery for good reason. Both search engines have a winning interface design that displays search results with minimal noise, but there are some differences between the two that deserve mention.

In what ways does Google have a better interface design?

At first glance I found Google to score higher on usability. Firstly the advanced search option was more clearly labeled on Google as ‘advanced search’. The blue letting immediately made it clear that it was a clickable link. On Bing this option was only labeled ‘Advanced’ and even though underlined it had the same font color as the text next to it. The news items results for my search input (which in case you were wondering was Snoop Dogg) appeared much higher whereas on Bing I had to scroll down all the way to the bottom of the screen. Google adheres to the quasi standard of showing the login option in the top right corner, while Bing puts the ‘Preferences’ option in that spot, requiring users to search for the login.

So why did such a seemingly good idea backfire?  Interface designers are often looking for new ways to improve their websites.  Yet, before implementing changes to an interface design, interface designers should think about the user’s reactions first.  The Google background flop is an excellent example of how to understand users and what they want.  And what users (especially search engine users) want is familiarity and universality within the interface design:

1.    Familiarity.  A web site as popular and (dare I say) archetypal as Google needs to be familiar to the user.  The plain white screen background is one of the hallmarks of the Google interface design.  It makes the user experience simple and is in no way distracting.  Over the years people have gotten used to Google’s basic design, and changing this learned pattern decreases the user’s comfort and familiarity with the site, a big usability no no.

2.    Universality. A site with such a diverse range of users needs to be equally accessible to all.  There were likely many users who enjoyed the artwork that graced the screen of Google’s homepage.  But many were probably confused, maybe even annoyed by it.  Lack of contrast or not knowing how much else besides the obvious background design had changed may have made users insecure.  The brilliance of Google’s homepage design is that it is so simple and uncontroversial that it makes the site attractive to everyone. Thus, the more universal the interface design, the more popular it will be among users.

There are many more factors that contribute to website usability, but Google’s new background image feature struck at the heart of the user’s expectations formed by two principles: universality and familiarity. Having a universal interface design that users are familiar and comfortable with is a great asset for a website that should not be put at risk.  As redundant as it is to say, interface designers must keep user needs and experience at the forefront of the interface design process.  However, this interface design platitude is worth eternally repeating because as Google’s background images faux pas shows us, even the big boys make mistakes.

A few weeks ago, Google decided to make a daring change to its interface design, one that was meant to make the site more aesthetically pleasing to its millions of users.  Google rolled out a set of backgrounds by well-known contemporary artists as a promotion of a new feature which was to allow users to choose and upload personal photos as a backdrop for the infamously plain, white search engine screen.  At the drawing table, this must have seemed like a fabulous idea to Google designers, a way to refresh their interface design and permit users to have more control of its settings.  However, like the plethora of ideas that are great in theory (but not in practice), Google’s new feature backfired.  On the day the new backgrounds were introduced, the number 2 trending search on Google’s trending pages was “Remove Google Background.”  Search engine searches speak volumes about what users want and are looking for.  Clearly, Google users were not looking for works of art to replace the white screen.  Within two days Google was back to its old design and users were happy to have the unadorned consistency back.