The thing is, I don’t think A/B testing gives a very complete picture. A lot of people and businesses seem to see it as the be all and end all, if the data says it converts better than that’s what we will go with but I think this is short sighted. A/B testing can tell you what works for short term goals and specific interactions but we need to keep sight of other things like trust and brand perception that are much harder to measure and I’d suggest have a much greater long term impact on conversion.

To help illustrate my point let me give you three examples:

1. The first example is changing a button label from “Download our software” to “Get started now”. I’m sure in testing that “Get started now” will be clicked on more often. But is downloading the software what they expect from clicking on this button and how do they feel about what happens?
2. Another example is changing a newsletter subscription entry area from an in page form to a pop-up dialogue (also known as light-box). Again I’m sure the pop-up will get more conversions than the standard form on the page but what does it communicate about your brand/personality by pushing it in someones face? I equate pop-ups like this to those pushy sales people on the street who try to get your attention when you are focused on something else.
3. A final example is having a check box in a checkout/payment form that asks customers to check the box to NOT receive email newsletters. Again this would no doubt get more subscribers than a straight forward question but what impact does it have when an unwanted email arrives in the customers Inbox?

Don’t get me wrong, I think A/B testing is extremely valuable and I use it when ever possible to help inform the designs I create, I just think it’s important to consider the findings of it in context of other factors – specifically brand personality, trust and long term business goals.

There are a wealth of dark pattern UI tricks out there that convert better than what I’d call the “right” way of doing it but clearly these won’t help in creating a valuable brand that customers want to tell their friends about. And let’s face it, word of mouth is crucial for online businesses.

As well as A/B testing it’s important to do regular user testing. User testing will help build a picture about the more important question you want answered – why. Why are customers drawn to it, why are they more likely to click on it, what are they seeking etc.

Focus on creating real value for customers and on supporting them to do what they want to do in the order they want. Be timely and contextual in the delivery of your messages and offerings. Be true to your brand values and your conversions will follow naturally. A/B testing is a valuable tool in the toolbox but it’s not THE tool. I’m certainly looking forward to when the buzz surrounding it settles.

1. Baffle the audience with bullshit, or
2. Provide one stupidly simple idea clearly.

I think it applies to user interfaces as well. I think websites often do the first one and struggle to do the second.

I’ve been to (and worked on) websites where the businesses intent seems to be to baffle potential customers with an array of bullshit (features, functionality and even content they don’t need) and make them feel like they need it. Maybe this tactic works, hell it must do given how many infomercials exist in the world, but I like to think customers are maturing.

I’m noticing that companies who take the second approach are becoming more prevalent and successful – I’m thinking Apple and 37Signals. These companies that focus on doing one thing well and not diluting their market perception are the ones flourishing while others (I’m thinking Microsoft) get weighed down by their own bloated products, features and offerings.

Apple Love

There are lots of opinions on this but that’s not going to stop me adding mine. My overly simplified take on why Apple has become hugely successful of late is that they focus on building long term relationships with their users.

While others are absorbed with creating features that help win the sale or are engaging in cheap tricks that help convert customers in the short term, Apple focus on creating products that build admiration and respect for their brand over time.

This means that those who own Apple products are unlikely to return to other brands and they also evangelise Apple products to others.

As Sachin Agarwal of Posterous very accurately pointed out in his recent post – A product is not just about features. It’s about experience:

“You won’t find a matrix where Apple compares their product to a competitor by feature. They measure products by the experience.”

The other ingredient for their current success is that I believe the IT consumer market is maturing and people are actually realising that the user experience is actually more important than the number of features.

The first post on this theme was by Douglas Bowman when he wrote about his rationale for leaving Google in his post titled “Goodbye Google“. In it he describes a company focussed on data (testing everything) and lacking design vision.

The next post was by Cliff Kuang of Fast Company’s Co.Design. In his post titled “Google Instant Proves Google’s Design Process is Broken” Cliff suggests that Googles reliance on user testing inhibits true design thinking and innovation.

And most recently was a post by Faruk Ates titled “Design Thinking vs. Data Thinking” in which Faruk describes Google having no empathy in it’s design approach and that they live or die by the “sword of data” – again suggesting a lack of design thinking at Google.

These discussions and the perception of design by some in the community concern me and I’d like to give my perspective.

A lack of aesthetics is not a lack of design thinking

The first issue I want to address is perhaps the oldest and easiest to address and that’s the perception that design is just aesthetics.

Google lacks a sophisticated, warm or emotional aesthetic in most of it’s user interfaces but that does not mean they lack design thinking or sensibilities. A lack of visual style does not mean an absence of design or design thinking!

Google clearly has plenty of money and has had ample opportunity to improve the aesthetic of their products but they haven’t chosen to – they’ve decided to keep it the way it is. That’s a conscious design decision – it’s not a lack of design.

This decision may not be made by a ‘designer’ (as most design decisions aren’t) but it’s still a design decision and one I believe serves them well. A lack of visual sophistication and emotion communicates that their focus, what they consider important, is elsewhere – in the speed, interactions and relevancy of search for example. Craigslist is another company that is very successful for very similar reasons.

It’s also equivalent to no label or home brands in supermarkets. They are designed to look cheap and essentially communicate to buyers “we’re cheap because we don’t spend lots of money on packaging and marketing”.

Designers are data driven

The next issue I want to address is this idea of Design Thinking v Data Thinking. Pitting them against one another is to suggest that they are mutually exclusive which is not the case. Any designer worth their salt will be data driven – from analysing data to inspire innovation and improvement through testing concepts to see what works best to being able to show measurable improvements and business outcomes resulting from designed updates.

There’s nothing that please me (and most designers I know) more than being able to point to data showing a design piece I worked on delivered on it’s goals.

Innovation & user testing are friends

The last issue I want to address is the idea that user testing or a user centred approach stifles innovation. Furuk (in his article mentioned above) uses the example of Google floundering with progressing Android because of their testing and data driven approach while Apple, with their design thinking approach, created the more successful phone the iPhone.

One could infer from this that user testing and data driven approaches are wrong and that businesses should just become better at design thinking. Businesses should be doing both. They should be pushing the boundaries and innovating with new ideas and approaches as well as testing and iterating on them. It should not be one or the other but both.

Steven Johnson in his great TED talk “Where good ideas come from” talks about how ideas come about slowly through exploration, contemplation, discussion and experimentation and I’ve always found user testing to be a great source of inspiration.

Perception of design titles & roles

I’ve been discussing the title UX Designer versus Web Designer over at Sitepoint after an inflammatory tweet by Ryan Carson where he called the title UX Professional bullshit.

To most people I’m sure debating job titles seems a waste of time and self absorbing, and it is, but for me it’s been enjoyable. It’s forced me to think further about why I use the term UX Designer as opposed to other titles and has made me more comfortable about my decision.

The key reason I call myself a UX Designer is because the other titles are too restrictive.

I like to conduct user research, delve into traffic stats, send out surveys to users, conduct user testing sessions, do interaction design, information architecture, visual design and some front-end coding. If the rest of the business world saw this as falling in the scope of a Web Designers role then I’d call myself a Web Designer – but that’s not what I’ve experienced.

The diagram above illustrates how I believe the majority of the business word perceive the roles of the various job titles that abound for designers. I’m not saying this is an accurate representation of what the roles entail either. I’ve worked with usability consultants whose skills expand well outside of what I’ve illustrated, same with web designers and the other titles, but again it’s my view on how others in the business word perceive the roles and responsibilities of the various job titles.

I see the title UX Designer as a title that describes someone who uses a broad range of techniques and methodologies from a variety of more specialised professions to help reach a solution. I see UX Designers as designers more willing to utilise approaches from these more specialised professions to create better design solutions. That’s not to say UX Designers are more talented than the specialists either. For example I’m comfortable doing the Information Architecture for a website but I wouldn’t be comfortable coming up with the classification system for a phone directory like the Yellow Pages. Another example is that I haven’t studied cognitive sciences or psychology so I’m not totally comfortable calling myself a usability expert but I do conduct user testing sessions to inform my design work.

At the heart of it is that the title Web Designer is perceived as someone who creates Photoshop mockups and builds them into HTML & CSS, maybe some Flash as well. A UX Designer is perceived to be someone who has a broader range of skills that can help business get to know their customers better and therefore create better designs for them.

PS. I’m conscious that Designers are infamous for over thinking things and for being sensitive and I realise this discussion doesn’t help that perception but hey, discussing these things in detail brings deeper understanding.

Traditional pagination

Pagination, those 1 2 3 .. Next page links at the bottom of a page of search results or content. Are they dying a slow death? I think so and when you step back and think about it, it makes perfect sense. Why do we need it? If you scroll to the bottom of a page of content surely that’s indicating you want to see more? So, website, load some more and save me the click and time!

Some good examples I’ve seen of this are on Forrst (screen recording below as it’s an invitation only site) and the new Google image search (go give it a try).

Note the back to top button top right in the screencast as well, nice touch!

Twitter has a big “more” button at the bottom which is somewhere in between traditional pagination and where I think we’re heading – a paginationless world. I think they should just load more tweets as you scroll and save us some clicking.

This post inspired by discussions at 99designs.com.

Update: This article Pagination alternatives is a good related read.

UX Australia Logo

I recently conducted an interview with 3 UX Designers who will be speaking at the 2010 UX Australia conference – this year hosted in my home town of Melbourne (August 25-27).

The interview is on sitepoint.com entitled UX Design: What it is, What it Takes, and Where it’s Going.

I’m really happy with how it turned out, I thought the guys had some insightful views especially around what it takes to be a good UX Designer. Have a read and let me know what you think.

The winning codaroos team. Photo courtesy of FullCodePress

It’s been almost a month since myself and the rest of the Aussie team brought the FullCodePress trophy to the shores of Australia for the first time. After suffering defeat at the hands of the New Zealand team for the first 2 years it was a nice feeling to win. And what a fantastic event to be a part of. I really enjoyed what was an intense long weekend in Wellington – the friendly locals, the lovely meals, the stunning Martinis, the excellent Webstock talks and the event itself. It was certainly an experience I’ll never forget and am glad I plucked up the courage to be part of.

An overview of the event

For those unfamiliar with FullCodePress, it’s the brainchild of Mike Brown and Russ Weakley and was conceived as a way to do something charitable while furthering the awareness of the web industry – as well as having some fun along the way.

How it works is each team, comprised of 6 web experts, competes to build the best website they can in 24 hours for a charity that is revealed to them at the start of the 24 hours. My favourite description of it is the Geek Olympics.

This year there were three teams competing; America (Team USA), Australia (Codaroos) and New Zealand (Code Blacks). It was Americas first competition and New Zealand had won the only 2 previous events. I’m proud to say I helped bring the trophy to Australia for the first time – and with a unanimous decision to back it up.

How we won it

So how did we win it? Philip Fierlinger of Xero (one of the judges) wrote a great article outlining the judging criteria and process but I’d have to add that I think we had a fair bit of luck on our side.

Some luck on our side

The teams were evenly matched in terms of skills, experience and talent (with the exception of Team USA who boasted some well known names in the industry) but I believe luck helped us to win.

1. We had a much simpler service to communicate compared to the other teams. Hearing dogs is easier to communicate than mental health and community youth services.
2. Our organisation was the only one that had an existing site which we could learn from.
3. We got a great representative from the organisation who was smart, knew her subject matter intimately, was trusting, a great communicator and who stuck with us for the full 24 hours.
4. We had some good imagery and video to use.
5. By coincidence, four of our team members had at differing times crossed paths with each other which made it easier for a big chunk of our team to work smoothly with each other.

The away advantage

It’s not that significant but travelling and staying together in a hotel really helped our team bond and get to know each other. I believe it played a part is us being able to work well together.

Lots of planning and preparation

Although nothing can really prepare you for the intensity of those 24 hours together, we did a reasonable amount of planning and preparation in the lead up. We used Teambox to share our thoughts, links and files. We had quite a few conference calls and we spent a fair chunk of the day before in the boardroom of our hotel collecting our thoughts and planning our approach. We even called a past contestant (David McDonald) to get a better understanding of what to expect and plan for.

Focus on content – it’s not all style

I believe our site is the weakest of the the three in terms of visual style. We won it for the content and stories told through the site and the usability of it. We kept the site flat, only 3 pages deep, and we organised it focusing heavily on their primary audience. We didn’t add any fancy features, we just kept it simple. We did plan to get in one fancy feature, for example an AJAX interaction somewhere significant, but it never happened. We did however create a pretty cool 404 page for them.

Quality over quantity

We went in with the approach of delivering quality not quantity and I don’t think we quite got there but it’s the best approach to take. 24 hours is not long to overlap interaction design, visual design, content writing and publishing as well as coding. If you want to deliver a winning solution then focus on delivering the bare essentials in the best possible format.

Collaborate with and give the client what they want

Collaboration was another thing we focused on. We wanted to all sit down and share a vision for the site first before we split off into our disciplines and did our own thing. We wanted to make sure we were on the some page and heading in the same direction.

In the initial workshop there were a lot of good ideas that we thought would benefit the client that we wanted to do but it became clear it wasn’t a priority for them – like a news area and accepting online donations. We pushed gently on some of them but in the end we listened.

We also made sure the client was involved in every part of what we did, from helping us develop the information architecture of the site to the visual direction and especially in shaping the content within it. She was constantly involved and contributing to what we were doing. Taking her on the journey as we say I believe was one of the keys in how we won.

It’s wasn’t all smooth sailing

It wasn’t all smooth sailing for the Codaroos over the course of the 24 hours. Without going into detail they were a few bumpy moments for our team that started around the 8 hour mark. This tainted the overall experience for me but at the same time it was great to see how everyone dealt with it and pressed on to the end. It also taught me a few things.

What I learnt

I learnt a lot from being part of FullCodePress. I learnt from my talented peers and competitors, from the Webstock talks I attended but also from being locked in a room with 5 other people for 24 hours in a public competition. It’s interesting the dynamics that form when 8 people are teamed together for for an intense 24 hours. I didn’t really expect it but it taught me a lot about myself.

Thank you, thank you, thank you

I’d like to send out a very big and warm thank you to the events organisers, the volunteers (especially those who plied me with coffee – you know who you are) and the sponsors, whom without I wouldn’t have gotten free flights, accommodation and an unforgettable experience:

• http://google.com/
• http://xero.com/
• http://www.sitepoint.com/
• http://www.multi-media.co.nz/
• http://www.netspace.co.nz/
• http://www.wellingtonconventioncentre.com/
• http://www.museumhotel.co.nz/

New Zealand is stunning

I can’t finish without mentioning how stunning and wonderful New Zealand is to visit. After FullCodePress I took the chance to explore some of the north island with my family and the landscape we saw was spectacular. Another thing I loved about New Zealand was how celebrated the Maori culture is in their everyday lives. I realise it’s not without it’s issues for New Zealanders but as a tourist it really added to the charm. Australia could well take a leaf out of New Zealand’s book there.

[UPDATE] Hear Adam, Lachlan and myself talk about our FullCodePress 2010 experience in this Sitepoint podcast.

Tumblr payment form

He framed it as “it’s not very often a payment form wows [him]” and it highlights to me how we designers sometimes overlook pushing the boundaries for established conventions – particularly when it’s something as serious as a payment form. Nice work Tumblr!