Your Baby is Ugly!
That’s the title of the article I just published on UXmatters, in which I give advice on how to soften the blow of delivering bad news to clients. Let’s face it, when we perform an expert evaluation, usability testing, or user research on an existing product – most of what we find is problems with the current product. Clients don’t pay us to tell them how great their products are. If they’ve hired us, it’s to find problems that can be fixed. But there are ways to make it easier to deliver bad news. In this article I provide the following advice:
- Get the stakeholders to admit that it’s ugly first
- Get everyone to buy into your research methods upfront
- Encourage stakeholders to observe the research
- Blame the bad news on the participants
- Back up your findings with metrics
- Present recordings and quotations
- Don’t beat your audience over the head
- Emphasize your expertise
- Back up your findings with examples of best practices
- Show your stakeholders they’re not alone
- Position it as providing recommendations, not pointing out problems
- Mention the positive aspects too
- Deliver your findings in person
- Prioritize the problems they should solve
- Provide a plan for addressing the problems
You can find more details about this advice in my latest article, Your Baby is Ugly.
A key skill you need for usability testing is the ability to work well with a variety of different types of people. You meet all kinds of people as usability testing participants. Over time, you get used to adjusting your approach to different personalities and characteristics. Most people are easy to deal with. However, some people present challenges.
In my latest UXmatters article, “Wrangling Difficult Usability Testing Participants,” I discuss ten types of challenging participants and how to best adjust your interaction with them to get the best testing experience.
In my latest article on UXmatters, Five Degrees of User Assistance, I bring up a character that people love to hate – Clippy, of course! Although I do have sort of a soft spot for the little guy, he is a great example of unwanted user assistance.
Poor Clippy! It really wasn’t his fault, he came along at a time when computers were too stupid to accurately predict when people needed help. Programmed to jump out when certain events occurred, to enthusiastically offer his assistance, instead he came across as an unwanted interruption and annoyance.
Today, as technology becomes increasingly intelligent, computers are smart enough to provide more appropriate and more accurate user assistance. In my latest article I describe these five levels of user assistance:
- Passively providing online Help content. Here’s help if you need it.
- Asking if the user needs help. Can I help you?
- Proactively offering suggestions that users can accept or ignore. Is this what you want, or do you want to correct this?
- Alerting the user that it’s going to take an action automatically, unless the user says not to. I’m going to do this, unless you tell me not to.
- Automatically taking an action for the user, without asking for permission. I’ve got this for you. Don’t worry about it.
Check it out at UXmatters: Five Degrees of User Assistance
Image source: Clippy, created by J. Albert Bowden II and licensed under CC BY 2.0
In my latest UXmatters article, I compare the latest prototyping tools to paper prototyping. Paper has long had the advantage in allowing designers to quickly and easily create early prototypes, that look unfinished, and encourage users to honestly provide criticism. However, the latest prototyping tools have caught up to, and in some cases surpassed, paper in making it very easy and quick to create prototypes without any coding.
So, do the advantages of paper prototypes still beat these new prototyping tools? That’s what I explore in my latest article, Prototyping: Paper Versus Digital.
Image credit: Samuel Mann
I just published an article in UXmatters, Conducting Qualitative, Comparative Usability Testing. It’s about conducting usability testing with two or more designs, early in the design process to get better information and better user feedback, before settling too soon on one particular design.
When participants are able to experience multiple designs, they can provide better feedback. As a result, you can gain greater insight into the elements of each design that work well and those that cause problems.
Today I published an article in UXmatters, Testing Your Own Designs. It’s often been said that you shouldn’t conduct usability testing on your own designs, because you may be too biased, defensive, or too close to the design to be an impartial facilitator. Although that may be the ideal, often UX designers don’t have a choice. They may be the only person available to test the design, so if they don’t test it, no one will. So in this article I provide advice for those times when you have to test your own design, and I also provide advice for when someone else tests your design.
I was hesitant to write this article, because it’s been a topic that many others have written about, but I felt that as someone who has been on all sides of the issue, I had something additional to add. Here are some other good articles about this topic:
Testing Your Own Designs: Bad Idea? and Testing Your Own Designs Redux by Paul Sherman
Should Designers and Developers Do Usability? by Jakob Nielsen
BECAUSE NOBODY’S BABY IS UGLY … SHOULD DESIGNERS TEST THEIR OWN STUFF? by Cathy Carr at Bunnyfoot
I published a new article in UXmatters this week, “What Could Possibly Go Wrong? The Biggest Mistakes in Usability Testing.”
This article came out of thinking about all of the mistakes I’ve made, and problems I’ve encountered, over the last 16 years conducting usability testing. I think it’s good to look back and think about the lessons you’ve learned. This article is jam-packed with advice learned the hard way.
Usability testing is the most highly structured user research method. Compared to field studies and interviews, the tasks and questions are usually highly planned, and you usually stick pretty close to the discussion guide. That also makes it the most repetitive method. You see the same types of people performing the same tasks and answering the same questions over and over again.
After you get some experience, you can begin to think of usability testing as routine and pretty easy. At a former company, it was the first task that we gave to new researchers, just out of college. It seemed like the easiest method to learn. That may be true, but there are still all kinds of mistakes that can occur. This article discusses the main problems and how to avoid them.
Photo by Blue Oxen Associates on Flickr
I just published an article on UXmatters, 10 User Research Myths and Misconceptions. It addresses common misunderstandings about user research that I’ve encountered over the years.
Here’s a bonus outtake from the article, Myth 11…
Myth 11: Field Research Is Better Than Usability Testing
On the other end of the spectrum from those who don’t understand the difference between user research and usability testing, are the user research elitists who think up-front, generative user research methods are far superior to usability testing. In this view, field studies take researchers out of the lab to observe people in their natural environments performing their usual activities, while usability testing takes place in the sterile, artificial environment of a usability lab and asks people to perform a limited set of artificial tasks. Instead of learning about people and what they really do, usability testing provides the limited value of learning whether people can perform your artificial tasks.
The Truth: Both Field Research and Usability Testing Have Their Places
Field studies and usability testing are two different methods used for different, but equally important, purposes. Field studies provide information to inform design, while usability testing evaluates a design. You have to make interpretations and conclusions from the user research and apply that to a design. Even after very thorough user research, you’re never completely sure that what you’ve designed will work well for the users. Usability testing is the evaluation that either confirms your decisions or points you to refinements. Both user research and usability testing are important and necessary. There’s no reason we can’t appreciate the value of both methods.
Analyzing the data is the most interesting part of user research. That’s where you see the trends, spot insights, and make conclusions. It’s where all the work comes together and you get the answers to your questions.
Why, then, did I publish an article in UXmatters – Analysis Isn’t Cool? All too often I’ve realized that clients, management, and project stakeholders underestimate the analysis phase and just want to get to the answers. People like to say that they did user research, but they don’t like to spend the time to analyze the data. They like the deliverables, whether they read them or not, but they don’t want to spend a lot of time on the analysis to produce those deliverables.
In this article, I discuss what analysis involves, methods for individual and group analysis, and ways to speed up the analysis process.
Photo by Josh Evnin on Flickr
I’m happy to report that user experience is alive and well in Bulgaria. I just got back a week ago from attending and presenting at UXify 2015 in Sofia, Bulgaria. A very enthusiastic audience of over 300 people attended a day of presentations, followed by a day of in-depth workshops. UXify was the end of a month of user experience events – UX Month Sofia.
On Friday, June 19th, I presented User Research in the Wild, a presentation about visiting people in their natural environments to observe their tasks. In addition to being a how-to guide, I covered common problems you face in conducting field studies and how to solve them, and how to overcome obstacles to field research.
On Saturday, June 20th, I gave a workshop on Paper Prototyping to about 20 attendees. After an introduction to creating paper prototypes and how to test them, the participants divided into groups to create their own paper prototypes. We only had a limited time to create them (about 40 minutes), so I was very surprised by how detailed and creative their prototypes turned out in such a short period of time. Each group of two people then joined with another group to take turns conducting usability testing on their paper prototypes. Each group did four rounds of tests, switching roles, so that each person was able to experience the role of the facilitator, “the computer,” and the participant twice. The attendees really seemed to have a good time, with a lot of laughing and joking around.
In between my own presentations, I attended several interesting presentations about dashboard design, gamification, socially responsible design, and ecommerce user experience.
It was a fun trip, and it was nice to meet a lot of similar people, in another culture, who are similarly committed and enthusiastic about user experience.