Karl Smith User Experience Architect (UEA) It's all about making other peoples experiences good ones

30Apr/120

e-Commerce concepts and research

The following is a paper I wrote in 2005.

Converting browsers to buyers: exploring what drives consumer choice in internet e-commerce

Why do internet users behave as they do, are their activities solely determined by website design? Or do they create their own pathways as a response to designated systems. For many, internet design is about the imposition of schemas, predetermined flows and consumer motifs, allowing the shepherding of an understood and mapped user towards buying products and services. However if this were true then every browser would also be a buyer. The underlying concepts of current website design rely on a number of pretexts which, when reviewed in relation to human activity and interaction, become questionable in their veracity.

1.       INTRODUCTION

There is recognition [16] that there is limited information in the understanding of the reciprocity of attitudes and behaviour constituting the relationship between internet shoppers and e-commerce websites. This is in contrast to commercially driven usability and web metrics companies who assert their findings based upon activity patterns often using statistically small samples [15]. Developing an understanding of the relationship between users and websites is key to determining patterns of interaction. Patterns of interaction are currently under investigation in two distinct ways, by using reflective and diagnostic methodologies. Reflection upon measurable activity, clicks, information foraging [5] and sales provide compelling insights for business metrics, can be limited by their subjective constituents. In turn diagnosis based on reviewers or heuristic interpretations with little user involvement [15] produce contentious results. This study will attempt to combine both forms of investigation with a large participant group study producing empirical data to be reviewed using both quantitative and qualitative approaches.

1.1         Research aims

The aims and objectives of the research can be summarised as follows:

  • Why do internet users behave as they do, are their activities solely determined by website design? Or do they create their own pathways as a response to designated systems.
  • List common behaviours and attributes to discern if there is a pattern that can be mapped and predicted.

These present some added details in comparison to the original project aims and objectives, described in the project proposal (appendix 6). Differences and the reasons for them are discussed in the final conclusions (chapter 6).

1.2      Conceptual investigation

  • Technological Determinism
  • How it came about
  • Engineering to computing rather than social science to computing
  • Boudieur absolutes – linking social theory with technology
  • Statistical absolutes taken by industry
  • Conclusion
  • Dialectic Computing
  • Social Computing
  • Tavistock Institute
  • Human Computer Interaction
  • Cultural Cognition
  • Embodied Interaction
  • Organic Systems
  • Commodities
  • Biography
  • Conclusion
  • Shopping
  • Consumption
  • Dialectic Interaction
  • Tensions
  • Dynamic
  • Conventions
  • Mediation
  • Trust
  • Conclusion
  • Investigation Methodologies
  • Reflective methodologies
  • Information Scent
  • Internet Statistics
  • Diagnostic methodologies
  • Observational
  • Active Narrative
  • Goals
  • Adaptations
  • Conventions
  • Conclusion
  • Lexical Distribution of Activity
  • Activity as a language
  • Conclusion

2.       E-COMMERCE THEORETICAL UNDERPINNING

The main area of this research is to gain an understanding of how people use technology as an extension of their world [10], specifically in the mode of consumer e-commerce. This world view is augmented by a representation of social constructs by an evolutionary process of active agents of transformation [4] in technology and specifically the creation of an electronic media habitus. This constituency maintains its own cultural capital and produces a parallel distinctive counterpoint to popular and consumer cultures. The nature of human computer interactivity, it's cultural, educational and gender attributes has a key influence on the unification of money, knowledge and technological aspiration. These factors are also represented in technological deprivation and the personalised safety of internalised ignorance.

To relate instances of electronic media habitus a combination of activity biography [1], [12] and negotiated conventions [7] enable the development of an activity definition index. The cultural disposition of technology, interactions and resultant pathways remain difficult to interpret without recourse to such a framework.

3.       REFLECTIVE METHODOLOGY

Existing methodologies produce results that use complex mathematics to create algorithms [6], create subjective rules of design [15] or usability inspection tools [3]. Which are normally only used with existing websites, only reflecting upon current interactions.

2.1 Information Scent

The cognitive walkthrough of the web has evolved based upon the notion that users decide on their course of action based upon cues, which derive behavioural patterns of interaction then form guide routes of information scent [3]. Information scent has also been developed using aspects of information foraging both structured and unstructured [6]. The Bloodhound project seeks to establish a clear method showing consistent, measurable elements that provide benefit in the design of websites. However there is contention in the effectiveness of this methodology [14] by commercially driven consultants.

2.2 Internet Statistics

There remains a problem with accessing "actionable statistics" [8] for businesses, and while their credibility and measurability remains opaque there will be a question regarding their veracity [18].

4.       DIAGNOSTIC METHODOLOGY

The general interpretation of an open and untamed [2] source of information like the World Wide Web (WWW) requires a systematic review of actions. Actions and user activity [11] in relation to an observable world require a common representation to determine navigation and related target acquisition. Ethnographic studies related by an in-series testing system can reduce the anomalous results associated with subjective reflective data. Ultimately a lexical definition of activity is needed; in the interim the term narrative enables an interpolative review of data which will provide a clearer definition of activity.

3.1 Narrative

The understanding of human interaction can be viewed as participation in the creation of personal historical elements, which allow dispersion in potential trajectories [10] evolving of a self imposed narrative. This narrative can be observed in linguistic and engendered functions which require definition and contextualisation. However to effectively map these functions a lexicon approach [9] as associated with endangered languages, would allow the use of rational linguistic dimensions including orthography, morphology, syntax and semantics. The creation of a lexical basis [17] makes individual actions communicable aspects of communities of actions with related compound, processed and adaptive meanings.

Several hypothetical goals, adaptations and conventions can be derived from this research which will further refine and delineate additional aspects of narrative behavior to produce foundational lexical and activity indices.

3.1.1 Goals

Goals can be a descriptor of predetermined final destinations which can subsequently be reduced to a form of knowledge morpheme. These inter-related sub-rationale units while distinct and finite offer an activity based response to catalytic impositions by addition and adaptation.

3.1.2 Adaptations

Adaptation allows the extension of narratives [13] creating alternative perspectives on the same object or situation. Further modifications can be made in a process of engagement, by determining the user's perceptions or discernment of active adversity which produces redirection.

3.1.3 Conventions

Conventions allow the use of avatars [7] to create nodes within lexical frameworks, providing index points in a narrative activity. Agreement of conventions in social, emotional and commercial arenas for completion, enable a measurable resolution to tasks.

5.       PROPOSED RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Data for this paper is being gathered through a three tiered research process. The target group for this research is consumers who purchase online, non-experienced WWW users based in the United Kingdom.

An initial pilot survey link has been introduced onto a number of United Kingdom based online shopping directories. Control questions have been used to define the target group and acquire basic demographic information. The survey consists of open ended questions with text areas to allow user to express their opinions on their online purchase experiences.

The main survey will be derived from the pilot by asking detailed questions related to the pilot results. This survey will use menu and dropdown tools with text areas to create both quantitative and qualitative primary data.

The final counterpoint survey will involve twelve participants (six consumers and six heuristic users) working on a series of scenario based activities derived from the main survey results. This ethnographic study will allow interactive testing and appraisal of user preferences, requirements and actual activity.

6.       CONCLUSION

While this paper seeks to review and define the boundaries of an ongoing associated data gathering exercise it has also produced a number of testable hypotheses to be reviewed after data acquisition.

The linking of action cues with ethnographics has the potential to define activity components, constituents, usage and compound derivatives which will allow measurable patterns of formation and defendable narrative component interpretation.

The use of lexical representations will provide a framework for the indexing of interconnected activity components which currently operate under diverse notations.

The ability to interpret interaction will form the basis of other studies to better understand and design e-commerce sites based on human interpretive activity.

REFERENCES

[1]   Appadurai, A. (1988) The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective, pp. 64–91. Cambridge:   Cambridge University Press.

[2]   Benyon, D., Turner, P., Turner, S. (2005). Designing Interactive Systems.

[3]   Blackmon, M., H., Polson, P., G., Kitajima, M., Lewis, C. (April 2002) Cognitive walkthrough of the Web. Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems: Changing our World, changing ourselves. ACM Press: Minnesota, USA.

[4]   Bourdieu, P. (1990). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.

[5]   Chi, H., Pirollie, P., Pitkow, J. (2000) The Scent of a Site: A System for Analyzing and Predicting Information Scent, Usage and Usability of a Web Site. Xerox Palo Alto Research Centre.

[6]   Chi, H., Rosien, A., Supattanasiri, G., Williams, A., Royer, C., Chow, C., Robles, E., Dalal, B., Chen, J., Cousins, S.  (April 2003). Web usability: The bloodhound project: Automating discovery of web usability issues using the InfoScent™ simulator. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. Pages: 505 - 512. ACM Press: New York, NY, USA.

[7]  Clanton, C., Marks, H., Murray, J., Flanagan, M., Arble, F. (1998). Interactive narrative: stepping into our own stories. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI 98 conference summary on Human factors in computing systems. Pages: 88 - 89.  ACM Press: New York, NY, USA

[8]   Foley, P. (2001) Internet and e-commerce statistics. European Business Review. Vol 13, No. 2. Published: Emerald Fulltext.

[9]   Gulrajani, G. (August 2003) SHAWEL: Sharable and interactive Web-Lexicons. Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics. Max-Planck-Institute: Nijmegen

[10]   Jennings, P. (2005). Constructed Narratives a Tangible Social Interface. Creativity and Cognition: Proceedings of   the 5th conference on Creativity & cognition. Pages: 263 - 266. ACM Press: New York, NY, USA.

[11]   Jul, S., and Furnas, G., W. (1997) Navigation in Electronic Worlds: A CHI 97 Workshop. SIGCHI Bulletin Vol 29, No 4 October.

[12]   Kopytoff, I. (1988) The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. In: Appadurai, A. (ed.) The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective, pp. 64–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[13]   Nakhimovsky, A. (June 1988) Special issue on tense and aspect: Aspect, aspectual class, and the temporal structure of narrative. Computational Linguistics, Volume 14 Issue 2 Pages: 29 - 43. MIT Press:   Cambridge, MA, USA

[14]   Nielsen, J. (August 2, 2004). Deceivingly Strong Information Scent Costs Sales. Alertbox from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040802.html

[15]   Nielsen, J. (March 19, 2000). Why You Only Need to Test With 5 Users. Alertbox from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html

[16]   Perea y Monsuwe, T., Dellaert, B., G., C., Ruyter, K. (2004). What drives consumers to shop online? A literature review. International Journal of Service Industry Management. Vol 12, No 1, Pages 102-121. Emerald Fulltext.

[17]   Pustejovsky, J. (December 1991). The Generative Lexicon. Computational Linguistics. Volume 17 Issue 4 Pages: 409 - 441. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA.

[18]   Rosenfield, J. R., (November 2001). Lies damned lies, and internet statistics. Direct Marketing. Published: Garden City. Vol 64, Iss 7 pg 61 - 64.

14Apr/120

User stories is another name for a cognitive walkthrough

I have been involved in Agile for a very long time, mainly because it uses methods from the human computer interaction scientific process (CHI/HCI).

I’m surprise no one else has blogged about the use of CHI/HCI processes in Agile before, but though I should say something as I keep getting told that it’s interesting how many CHI/HCI people have embraced Agile. In fact it’s the other way around we have simply re-appropriated our own techniques that have new Agile names.

The main one is User Stories; they are in fact a reuse of the Cognitive Walkthrough, but I’ll let you draw your own conclusion.

Cognitive Walkthrough is a method utilised to determine the potential usability failures within an interactive system.

The method starts with a task analysis that specifies the sequence of steps or actions required by a user to accomplish a specified task. The system response to each action is noted. The designers and developers of the software then walk through the steps as a group this enables an agreed view. They ask themselves a set of defined questions at each step to determine all the potential outcomes. Afterwards a report of potential issues is compiled and the project team has a clear focus on the various user pathways including happy paths, risky paths, error paths and failure paths.

User Stories are a quick method to determine the who, the what and the why of a business requirement and are produced in a narrative format as if a user was walking through their use of an interactive system.

User stores are written at two levels Epic Stories that define groups of functionality (registration) and User Stories that define a single piece of functionality (sign in).

User stories are written by the product owner (an Agile tile for stakeholder or product manager) a user experience architect or a business project manager (not a scrum master) or the development team when they break down stories that are too large (these are then confirmed by the product owner).

The method starts with defining the Epic stories, then breaking these down into smaller stories that relate to an encapsulated (self standing) component. In design and development these stories can be parcelled to the various specialisations including user research (end user validation, How It Works), visual design, user experience design, back-end development (feature and service delivery), security and front end development. These stories will have their interlinks (to other components) stubbed out until those stories are built and can be integrated.

Agile + CHI/HCI = User Centred Requirements, User Centred Design and User Centred Development.

They are not exactly the same but the essential method is, think like a user, describe what you can do and build the system that enables a user to complete a task or gain a feature and that is the same.

12Jan/120

How to Hire a Head of User Experience

Head of anything is evocative of responsibility, power and knowledge, but what does Head of User Experience (UX) really mean and how do you know if your getting one?

User experience in its value and effectiveness is geographical and sector based, that is to say it means different things to different people by country, by business and by route to the role (in-house HR or agency service). With this many variants how can anyone be sure that they have hired a Head of User Experience?

One of my colleagues in a recent contract described User Experience as turning the turd (poo) into a piece of glitter covered turd. If this is the expectation it's not really surprising if the wrong people get senior roles, then the incompetent lead.

What I want to show is some basic indicators about hiring a Head of User Experience;

Please don't be offended if it's what you do for a living (recruitment or employment agent), glean what you can and discard anything you don't need. :)

Who, What, When, Where, Why.

Who do they know and how do they deal with them?

They must know users; understand user drivers and perspective for every project just as they must know the client stakeholders and leaders with the environment that they are working in. The level of knowledge will vary, as much of the information is second hand from Lead and Senior designers or researchers. But the Head of UX will have both their own knowledgebase and be able to elicit extra business and strategic information not visible to other ux practitioners.

Can they let their team work or do they micro-manage? It’s really important when working with a new (to the Head of UX) team that the teams strengths are encouraged and supported. UX is one of those skill sets where diversity of experience is critical in evolving multiple parallel project solutions within a team of peers. Giving the team rights over the group output is critical to maintain quality and to challenge narrow thinking. How they manage, mentor and train people is key to the future of the team? How will they deal with internal applicants for the job they have just got? Conflict is a given in any location where people are, what are their stratagies for conflict? Watch out for people with an 'I problem' if it's all about them they cannot see other people. Get references from colleagues as well as employers, you can find them as connections on Linkedin.

What do they do for a living, how do they describe themselves, their ux work and their colleagues?

How do they describe what they do for a living, a couple of years ago recruitment agencies where told by someone that ux people only focus on the user and that should be their response when ask who they focus their efforts on. Wrong, ux is a service that is based on creating a meeting point between people, organisations/businesses > providers and products/services > content. Any Head of User Experience who does not know this is not a Head of User Experience, it’s a business. It’s a great business that gives an audience access to the content they are looking for, makes it easy to interact with and enables communication with the content provider, but it’s still a business. Watch out for divas they upset clients and stakeholders alike a Head of UX is a savvy business person and knows which things to fight for and which things to mitigate as a risk.

Do they have a process? Can they describe the process and where it came from, how it has evolved through their experiences and which projects made the most change or option routes for it.

When did they acquire their skills?

People involved in user experience who have the kind of experience to be a Head of User Experience come from diverse backgrounds. A colleague of mine started in the US DoD (in the 1980’s) designing graphic manuals for troop training and another NATO information systems. Find out what else they have done and how they evaluate their experiences, because their experience underwrites their other skills and gives them a breadth of understanding about various sectors that may not be on their CV’s. For instance I have had lots of experience setting up business banking accounts, some really lousy (maybe for another post), some grossly inefficient (some excuses of epic proportions) and others utterly fabulous. Ask them to describe an experience, evaluate it and provide a solution to any problem they have encountered. For people like us it’s easy, for example I’ve had a fix for the supermarket self checkout bottleneck for years, it’s obvious.

User Experience in its current form is a fairly recent naming when I meet practitioners with experience before 2005 described as user experience, I know there is something wrong depending on where in the world they say they got their experience.

Where and with whom do they associate?

Confirming the professional level of a person is now quite easy with Linkedin, connect with them and have a look at their connections, if they don't know any senior people outside of ux they are not senior themselves. It's a cultural thing we tend to mix with people at or above our own level when thinking professionally, occasionally people come on the radar where they a worth following to see where their career goes. Yes, Linkedin again, if you don't use it, you won't know what your missing.

Why do they think they fit?

Based upon their research, they should know enough about the role, the people, the ethos and the clients or stakeholders to be able to pitch a reason why they fit in.

Don’t ask a Head of User Experience;

Don't ask for a portfolio asks for a presentation. Presentation ability is required when working the board of directors, client stakeholders and when conducting pitches with new business or internal advocacy. Look for the narrative, a really good ux presentation has a story that it's telling 'What is UX?', 'How can UX help my business?', 'Project name UX concepts', 'Project name user stories' etc. Also look for substance over style, the presentation must be meaningful and hint at critical thinking and creative talent, really flashy presentations make me concerned when they lack any real information, interpretation of data or concepts that have a provable pathway from researched insights.

Finally get references

I mean get real references, as if your job depended upon it, because it and your future reputation do. User Experience is still a small field, when someone with little or no experience gets a Head of User Experience role the first question we all ask is what was the agency that did this? When I am really unsure of an applicant (due diligence is critical in client services) I use a private detective, just give them the CV and ask for verification.

 

27Nov/110

Subsistence, Resolution, Gain or Advantage result levels of user experience (UX)

 Subsistence, Resolution, Gain or Advantage UX?

What do clients require, what are clients getting and can they tell the difference in the level of ux or do they just not call again?

There is a major problem with user experience as it evolves, many practitioners are not underwriting their output with recent ux research but are relying on past patterns. In turn this has caused the creation of streams or levels of UX capability and delivery; Subsistence, Resolution, Gain or Advantage UX. The notion of pattern based UX is being added to by major software companies building static interaction libraries for front end development tools as if everything in user experience and interactive systems can be or should be limited to the same interactive behaviours as every other system! If I was commissioning some digital system I would want to know who else the same thing has been done for already.

Subsistence level UX

Pattern based user experience, where the UX person (interaction designer, UX developer) or whoever providing the service has not conducted UX requirements gathering and UX research is subsistence level UX. The result of this type of UX is survival but it does not support growth as it was not conceived by understanding targeted users.

Resolution based UX

Fixing basic problems with a user experience would at first glance appear easy, but in fact it's more difficult from a green field project, because no matter how bad the experience is, people have become use to it. With users involved it's not a fix problem, it's a migration problem. UX people should be asking themselves 'how do I in UX facilitate users moving from one experience to another?' This requires a mixture of analytics and user workshops (group work) to rapidly find a common interactive language for the systems target audience.

Gain based UX

Understanding the motivation, desires and needs of targeted users in defining ux requirements (changing the project/business requirements) enable gain type UX. This type of UX is front loaded on to projects to establish clarity of focus that enables the adoption and rapid integration of complex interactive systems.

Advantage based UX

Advantage based UX, is like gain in that the focus is the user, but at a strategic and architectural level. Almost everyone you ask at the strategic level will say 'yes we focus on the user' but they don't think like the user, they think like someone selling or engaging with the user and are not objective. Advantage based UX has the rights the question the reason for projects asking 'what benefit does the user get from this? does this reduce our trusted brand status? etc.' Advantage is always set by being where there market is often before they know that where they are themselves. How? By modelling user logic, user behaviours, user interaction, external factors upon personas and target markets it's really complex, that's why so few people and companies do it.

Switch to our mobile site