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

15Feb/120

IA is not another name for UX

User experience (UX) and Information Architecture (IA) are very different and have separate skill sets, processes and outputs.

I often talk to people who add IA on the their CV as if it's some simple skill, it's actually more complex and difficult than UX. IA is also hundreds of years old as an activity while UX is less than twenty in it's current form.

  • Information architecture is involved in the classification and structure of information.
  • User experience is involved in; defining who the audience is, what they can do, how they can do it and matching the aspiration of the content provider with the desires of the audience.

 

Related

16Jun/110

User experience as a process

Process thinking in user experience

The first step in user experience needs to be the recognition that every problem is different and will require a separate solution. Because if they are not, then every business is the same which they are clearly not.

In effect there is no quick fix or standard method but rather there is an armoury of methods each with associated risks, limitations and plus points. Anyone offering a standardise method without flexibility should be ask to leave as they about to cost you a fortune.

Offering user experience services is a bit like dungeons and dragons in that you role your 12 sided dice and hope the business does not throw some trolls at you.

I have worked with very well known agencies who are unable to get their clients to understand the importance of user experience - research, testing and design as they focus on the design component without proper understanding that it is only one part of a three stage process. The reason that clients give for not paying for research and testing is the assumption that user experience people a such great experts that they can do their job in total isolation from the business and the end users. Maybe 'Super User Experience Person' does exist but I doubt it, more importantly users change.

Some process steps for user experience

This process list is based on personal experience and is open to reduction or extension based upon just how savvy the client is and how must they really want to be successful rather than just being seen to be doing something.

1. Understand the problem
2. Do research
3. Analyse research
4. Get validation
5. Compose concepts
6. Create buy-in
7. Define the audience (actors)
8. Create personas
8.1 Research
9. Define critical tasks
9.1 Research
10. Define key pathways
10.1 Main pathway
10.2 Alternative pathways
10.3 Failure pathways
11. Set the tone of voice
11.1 Type of language
11.2 Level of formality
11.3 Use of jargon, brand identity or subject specific words
11.4 Content style
11.4.1 Meta standards
11.4.2 Content object model
11.5 SEO if web based
12: Wireframes
12.1 Selection of type & method
12.1 Wireframe Concepts
12.1.1 User testing
12.2 Wireframe sketches
- Client sign off
12.3 Wireframe prototypes
12.3.1 User testing
- Client review
12.4 Wireframe & Visual design integration
13. Functional specification & analytics specification
- Pass to development
14. Usability Test plan
15. Accessibility Test plan
16. Functional & Content Test plan
17. Testing handover with participant screening document
18. Review testing results
19. Modify labels,  interactions & structure in line with findings
20. Done, until .....
21. Check interactions based upon analytics and more user testing.
22. Offer enhancements to clients.

2Feb/110

Digital banking structure

Digital banking structure

I have worked with a number of banks and financial services companies mainly in user experience and team management, I have also been involved in the development of new business models. I keep being asked to provide structure information for various clients so feel it simpler to make the enclosed structural diagram available here as it may also help digital agencies and new start-ups understand the relationship between various roles.

2Feb/110

Requirements gathering structure determines success

It is an understood factor in travel that if the journey starts even half a degree wrong then the final destination will be considerably different from where the person intended to be, this is for many why there is a make do culture when working with technology requirements. Unfortunately bad requirements gathering can seriously derail a project before it really begins.

There are several types of requirements gathering research that are carried out as separate workstreams.

  • Market requirements which includes competitor analysis and proof of concept.
  • Business requirements, including business stakeholder perceptions and business KPI’s.
  • Technology requirements often described as non functional requirements, including existing capabilities (hardware, software and skill base) and comparable technologies.
  • User experience requirements which include behaviour research, KPI’s, perception research and interpretation for the specific project domain.

One of the key things to understand is that the structure and implementation of requirements gathering in each type is different even if some methods may appear the same, their interpretation and output are not. Additionally in UCD (user centred design) the method of interpretation and output are user centric rather than business centric, I find user stories a very helpful output method as it maintains user goals in a structured format that can be reused in the development process.

Case study 1

In a recent project the client requested assistance in setting up the requirements gathering process, they were intending on having groups of people from the same department together. One of the key things to understand in structuring research is the possible points at which the data can be skewed and therefore become less valid. It is human nature in a group for people to temper what is said if senior staff is present.

Instead of running the requirements gathering along department lines it was defined by UCD stakeholder roles;

  • Senior managers (strategic high level thinkers)
  • Managers (project capability thinkers)
  • Production (detailed problem solving thinkers)
  • External users (frustrated users with wide subject based experience)
  • External consultants (cutting edge thinkers with wide subject based experience) as a design panel

There was also screening documents for participant selection for each role in order to assist in defining effectual research methods. Participants were sent an overview prior to sessions so that they would understand what was going to happen at very general level. In parallel an external agency was commissioned to research market requirements in the same domain and in a comparable domain. A technology audit was also carried out to support the technology requirements component.

Case study 2

In another project where the client was intending the project to effect change in multiple countries and markets requirements gathering research was conducted in several countries. The United Kingdom was used as a baseline country with adaptations defined through in person and remote research for Eastern Europe, Western Europe, USA, South America and South East Asia.

   

Switch to our mobile site