As UX researchers, we tend to focus more time on explaining our findings than in providing our recommendations. Yet, however well we explain the findings and recommendations, there comes a time when we’re not present, and the people who have to implement the recommended changes have to rely on the written recommendations and what they remember from your explanation. So it’s very important to ensure that your UX recommendations are understandable, concise, specific, believable, authoritative, actionable, feasible, flexible, prioritized, and easy to review. I provide advice on how to provide better recommendations in my latest article on UXmatters:
Any user research is better than doing no user research, right? If you can’t reach your target users, you can do research with your company’s employees, because they’re kind of similar right? If you can’t visit people in person to see them perform their tasks, maybe you can do phone interviews or send out a survey. That’s better than nothing, right?
The truth is that it’s sometimes better not to do any user research than to do half-assed user research. I’m not saying that you always have to the perfect user research conditions or its not worth doing. In reality, we rarely have all the time we need and the perfect circumstances to conduct extensive user research. So it’s understandable that we sometimes have to cut corners and make do with what we’re able to get. However, there’s a fine line between discount user research and half-assed user research.
The danger is when you always cut corners, you can become an enabler. Your shortcuts become the norm, allowing your company to check off the user research checkbox, allowing them to say, “Yes, we do user research.” If you can’t eventually convince them to devote more time and effort to user research, sometimes it’s better to practice tough love and let them fail by not doing any user research, rather than allowing them to rely on poor quality research.
In my latest UXmatters article, I provide advice about how to know when you’re practicing half-assed user research and how to improve. Check it out: Avoiding Half-Assed User Research
Image by Spider.Dog
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
I just published an article on UXmatters today, “Why So Many UX Analogies?” It’s an investigation into why there are so many articles that compare UX to other things and whether these UX analogies have any value. I mentioned some examples in my article, but here are links to many more UX Analogies. Trust me, this doesn’t even scratch the surface.
- What I Bring to UX from Architecture
- What UX Designers Can Learn from Architects
- Being a UXer: It’s a Lot Like Being a Therapist
- The Craft of UX: What We Can Learn From Baker’s Guilds
- Everything I Needed to Know About Good User Experience I Learned While Working in Restaurants
- Everything I Needed to Know About User Experience I Learned in a Restaurant
- What UX Designers Can Learn From Dancers
- What Designers Can Learn from Economists
- What Philosophy and Neuroscience Can Teach Us About UX
- What I Bring to UX From Professional Wrestling
- 7 UX Lessons From Leading Fitness Classes
- What Talk Shows Can Teach Us About UX Research
- What I Bring to UX from Architecture
- 5 Things Hip Hop Teaches Us About UX Design
- What Designers Can Learn from Graffiti Design
- 4 UX Lessons I Learned Playing With Toys
- What Disney’s Classic Animation Principles Could Teach Web Designers
- What VR Can Teach Us About UX
- Walt Disney Was the First UX Professional
- Walt Disney: The World’s First UX Designer
- 5 Things App Designers Could Learn from Walt Disney
- What Experience Designers Can Learn from Walt Disney World
- What the Wine World Can Teach Us About User Experience Design
- What Fine Art Can Teach Us About UX Design
- What Toilets Can Teach Us About UX Design Online
- What Elevators Can Teach Us About Web Design and Usability
- What I Learned From Sherlock Holmes
- What I Bring to UX From James Bond
- The Ghost Hunter’s Guide to User Research
- What 4 Things Can Sonic the Hedgehog Teach Us About UX?
- 5 Things UX and UI Designers Could Learn From Wes Anderson
- What Experience Designers Can Learn From Martha Stewart
- What Mobile App and Web UI/UX Designers Can Learn From Steve Harvey Mix-Up?
- How Steven Spielberg Can Make You a Better UX Designer
- What UX Can Learn from Don Draper
- Everything I Know About UX I Learned From The Terminator
- What Super Mario Taught Us About UX
- 8 Truths About UX Design I Learned From the Berenstain Bears
- What Quentin Tarantino Can Teach Us About UX in NGS Data Analysis
- What Sci-Fi Has Taught Us About Interaction Design
- 3 Actionable UX Lessons From Hollywood
- Five UX Lessons from Hollywood
- Learning UX Design: UX is Like a Text Adventure
- How UX is Like Riding a Bike
- UX is Like a Crossword Puzzle
- UX Design is a Team Sport…
- DIY and Web Design: What We Can Learn from Home Renovation
- What UX Analysis Can Learn from Early 20th Century Italy
- UX Lessons From the USSR: The Trouble With Manifestos
Today I published a new article in UXmatters, “What to Consider When Choosing a UX Job.” It details the questions you should ask and consider when contemplating a new job in the UX field.
I’ve written several UX career advice articles over the years. I link to them on my Publications page, but here they are compiled for easy reference. I don’t claim to be a career expert, but these are just some of the things I’ve learned (sometimes the hard way) in my 15 years in UX.
What to Consider When Choosing a UX Job
UXmatters – January 4, 2016
Lately, it seems like there are more jobs in User Experience than ever before. Deciding whether to accept a particular position is always an important decision, but in a hot job market like this, with so many opportunities, choosing the right company to work for is more important than ever. As with any other job opportunity, there are typical criteria to consider such as salary, benefits, company culture, and the commute. But, in this article, I’ll focus on the special considerations when you’re contemplating a new UX job.
UX Generalists or Specialists?
UXmatters – September 7, 2015
This is a question that every UX professional faces at some point: is it better to be a UX generalist, or is it better to specialize? Companies often question whether a team of UX generalists or a mix of specialists is best. In this column, I’ll discuss the advantages and disadvantages of generalization and specialization for UX professionals and the companies that hire them.
Better UX Internships
UXmatters – March 10, 2014
An internship is a great way to get into the field of user experience, but internships are often failures—for both the intern and the hiring company. Why? The hiring companies often don’t have a plan for how to use their interns, and interns often don’t know how they can contribute or where they fit in. In this column, I’ll discuss what interns and companies can do to ensure a better internship experience.
Career Advice for User Researchers
UXmatters – December 5, 2011
Eleven years seems like a good point at which to reflect back on the things I’ve learned over my career and pass on some advice to those who are just getting started in the field of user research.
Publishing and Presenting, Part 1: Yes, You Can!
UXmatters – November 12, 2012
In Part 1, I’ll discuss the benefits of publishing and presenting, as well as explore the excuses that prevent people from doing either. Publishing and presenting is a lot of work, especially when you’re already a busy UX professional. So why bother? Here are a few reasons you should.
Publishing and Presenting, Part 2: Publishing
UXmatters – December 10, 2012
Perhaps Part 1 of this series convinced you of the benefits of publishing, dispelled your fears, and defeated the excuses that have prevented you from publishing in the past. But how do you get started writing, and how do you get your writing published? These are the questions I’ll answer in Part 2.
Publishing and Presenting, Part 3: Presenting
UXmatters – January 7, 2013
In part 3 of this of this series, I’ll discuss how to generate ideas for conference topics, find the right conference at which to present, submit a proposal, and create a presentation, and what to do during a conference where you’re presenting.
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.