Process + Brand = Experience

Our changing perception of ownership - 6 trends sparking the shift

We may own a lot of stuff, but I think we are starting to have a different view of what should be owned/purchased/bought versus accessed/licensed/rented. The end desire is the same - ability to use an item to solve a problem. But how you access that solution - direct purchase or access rights - may be different. And does that matter? Or do customers care more about finding an economic and sustainable way to solve their problems?

 

How we view ownership in society is changing. In many respects, ownership is the goal of the buyer’s journey, the sales process, and the main interaction people have with a company. Many look to “own” a solution to a problem. We make ownership seem simple - you go to a store (brick and mortar or virtual), buy something, and bring it home. But that’s not really what happens. Subconscious decisions occur during various steps of the process to determine if a product really solves your problem, and if the product has value or worth to you at its current price point. There can be many stakeholders involved in a purchase, depending on the item, how much it costs, who will use it, the type of benefits, and how it will be maintained.

We sometimes kid ourselves into thinking that money doesn’t matter when we are solving a problem. “Money is no object.” But it is. Money is often a deciding factor for a purchase or license. We may decide that the high cost of the solution makes the problem not worth fixing and reduce the priority of the problem in our lives. We may decide that it’s ok to live with the problem as-is, or do some more research and find a free or low-cost substitute workaround. In doing this, there is a chance that we may simply not be seeing how deeply the product will change our lives for the better. We walk away from the solution because it's too difficult to see a new way. We need help visualizing the change.

An evening gown is a great example of a complex purchase that may be influenced by money. A gown may not change your life, but it is a great example of a buy or rent scenario and the factors involved in the decision making around that.

If you attend formal functions often, it makes sense to own a gown. But there are a number of reasons why gown ownership isn't practical:

• Most of us attend a formal event a handful of times in a lifetime. We don't need one in our closet.
• A gown is usually based on high fashion trends. If you only wear one every few years, then it would go out of style before you could wear it again.
• You don't want to be seen wearing a gown twice by the same group.
• Gown maintenance and storage can be costly (depending on the gown, it could take up a lot of room in a closet and require a special dry cleaner to clean it)

For many, it makes more sense to rent a gown for an event and return it the day after. Rent the Runway was founded on the premise of reducing replacement and maintenance costs. They also rent designer clothes that you may only want to wear a handful of times before they are out of fashion. They solve the problem of wearing the right outfit for the right occasion and provide a different way to finance access to the solution. The alternative solution to renting a gown for a formal event is putting the gown on a credit card (some would return the gown the next day, as unethical as that sounds...it is a common option). Another solution is simply not going to the event. But if Rent the Runway does it right (and they have), they found a way to paint a picture of a future where you get the best of all worlds - even cost-wise.

As mentioned above, the cost of ownership is tied not only to the purchase cost, but the cost of maintenance, repairs, and replacement. There are also insurances, warranties and guarantees to consider. There are pros and cons to alternatives like leasing or renting once these other costs are considered.

As an aside….I’d like to clarify the definition of a product and/or service that a company offers. Sometimes we view products from a company's perspective - as items to be sold or items that we need to get someone to buy. From my perspective, a product or service should be seen from a customer perspective as a solution to a problem. The problem could be, for example, hunger (products in a grocery store), boredom (amusement parks, zoos, museums), or desire for knowledge (books, schools).

To clarify, if someone doesn’t buy your solution, it’s because it’s not a priority for that person. He simply found another way to solve his problem without buying from (or spending money with) you. 

Historical view of ownership
Ownership used to be related to investments and assets. People would purchase land as an investment. That land became a place to grow food and generate revenue from the excess harvested. Or they could sell the land because it increased in value as it sat there. Same with a house. Same with a horse. You bought a horse and had transportation, manpower, and wealth that could be sold to another bidder. Sure, you had to feed it and care for it, but those costs were far less than the value it gave providing transportation and other services (even the ability to reproduce and make more to sell). 

In some ways, clothes were an investment (they could be repaired and worn for years). Food was an investment. A printing press was an investment. Owning a book was an investment. Jewelry was an investment.

Then came along automation and mass production. Costume jewelry. Plastic plates. Things that were not made to last. Things that required maintenance, serious repairs, and possible replacement because they were temporary, created for fun, or just a handful of uses.

Over time, even cars were not seen as an investment. They required a lot of maintenance and repairs. And replacement. Things were no longer seen as investments or assets. They were things that cost money and declined in value the longer you owned them. 

According to this Financial Times article, businesses were the first in revising their perspective of ownership. Many stopped owning their offices and business spaces (e.g., supermarkets, airlines). They rented because it was perceived as more economical, flexible (they could change locations and not need to sell), and sustainable.

I see six trends influencing our views of ownership as well as our view of products and solutions and wealth/assets.

#1: Ownership isn't really connected to wealth and investment anymore.

As stated earlier, people in the past would own something because it was an asset with long term value. Buying a good was equated with making an investment, increasing in value over time, adding to your wealth.

With the rise of mass production and consumerism, we have witnessed that not all items we buy will increase our assets and wealth. In fact, some things we buy will decrease our wealth because of maintenance and repair costs. Again, cars are a great example. Many say that a car loses its value as soon as someone drives it off the dealer's lot. Then there are the maintenance and repair costs. After 10 or more years, there are replacement costs. It provides transportation, but are the costs worth it?

 

#2: Our definition of wealth and investment has changed.

What does it mean to be a wealthy person? Our definition of personal wealth is shifting from being based on money to personal experiences and balanced living. Trips are now being seen as a personal investment to broaden our views of the world and how we see ourselves in it. Education has always been perceived as an investment because you can expand how you see the world and yourself.

Sure, what is in your bank account matters when defining wealth, but that is not the only factor. 

The movie Citizen Kane illustrates this best. Although the movie was made in 1941, its message is still relevant, if not more relevant, today. Charles Kane owned a mansion, the largest personal zoo, incredible artwork, but on his deathbed, he wished to find his slide, Rosebud. He had this slide as a kid before he entered the world of wealth. To him, Rosebud represented his most prized possession - his childhood with his family. It makes you wonder if he saw himself as poor, although he had many things.

This begs the question: how do you define wealth? In some ways, your perception of wealth could be a reflection of your value system. 

 

#3: We are increasingly wanting access to things that simply can't be owned.

You can't "own" a song. You can write or perform a song. You can record a song for later listening. You can access that song to listen to it. But you can't "own" it. You can own the CD that the recording is on, but that song is not technically yours. Same with a book. Someone else wrote that book. You are reading it. You may own the paper it is on, but you don't own the tale or the thoughts or ideas outlined in the book. Those are from someone else. The person who originated the thoughts and ideas can provide access to you to read it, or keep it to himself. 

In a way, the digital world and the discussion around media rights is raising a solid point about creative work and ownership. It can't be owned. It's about access.

We are almost extending the model of the library. The library provides access to books that we return. With the rise of the Internet, we now have access to knowledge. But we don't own it. It's free, we can read it at any time, but we will never own everything on the Internet. However, we can always access it.

 

#4: The cost of ownership (maintenance and repairs) may be too high.

The term, "total cost of ownership," (TCO) is now commonplace. Businesses consider this when they purchase a solution. It's no longer a consideration of what's the cheapest solution - it's how much the solution will cost a company or person in the time that the person "owns" the product. It's a long-term cost view of ownership.

Rather than the car example I keep using, let's look at a house. If you don't go to the right appraiser or inspector, you could purchase a house with a faulty foundation or frame. There may be a leaky roof that even the previous owners weren't aware existed. Or the shingles could have been poorly installed. Or the gutters. There is always maintenance for a house, which is why many don't own and rent. Issues can range from structural damage after extreme weather to simple wear and tear to general improvements. There is even gardening and yard work that needs to occur.

Another example for TCO is clothes that require dry cleaning only. Dry cleaning can easily cost $10-15 per shirt depending on the dry cleaner. So a $100 silk blouse may easily cost $250 after 10 wearings.

This is why ownership doesn't always make sense. Wearing a dry clean only shirt could easily double, if not triple, the cost of the shirt. We are told a home is an investment, but in some ways, given that it is based on property values and market rates and how much work you put into it, is it? 

 

#5: Technology is changing so fast that ownership is no longer sustainable. 

If we look at how technology is changing so fast, we can quickly see how items are built to last a few years, if not only a few seasons. We get new technology to replace old, dated technology. We dread buying it because we know we’ll need to replace it. Sometimes, you can't even repair it if it is broken. Further, if you can repair it, the cost is prohibitive and it is cheaper to purchase a new solution. 

The iPod is now essentially dead (and iTunes is probably shortly behind) after only 16 years with the rise of the iPhone and other media devices. Another example is ethernet cables. We no longer connect to the internet with cables (for about 5-7 years now). Dial-up access is a thing of the past. The world is wireless. I predict that keys to homes will be a past novelty in 5 years - already homes are using combination locks rather than keys. And with biometric technology on the horizon, isn't that a better way to lock your door?

Cell phones can now be purchased using a monthly charge and replaced after 2-3 years - you turn in your phone and get a new one. I personally have an issue with this regarding wiping the data off of a device when you return it. However, options are now appearing to accommodate and better support sustainability and waste from the technology changes causing tech products to be obsolete in a handful of years.

 

#6: Time is valuable - owning may take longer to do than other means of accessing an item.

We believe a myth when we go to buy expensive goods: you go to a store or showroom, find what you want, give cash, take it home.

The reality of buying expensive goods: you research your options, you go to the store or showroom several times, you talk to sales people, research more, talk to customers, you research finance options, you decide on what you want to buy, you sign a bunch of paperwork, add in maintenance agreements and additional warranties, and then you bring it home.

Buying could include securing a loan, insurances, warranties, and more. It's not always that simple.

Again, the example of a car. Renting a car for a few days takes minutes. Buying a car is a multi-month process.

An apartment can be rented in days. A home takes at least a week to purchase.

Peer sharing is a new purchase and ownership/access method that is revolutionizing how we use solutions. Airbnb for hotels and Turo for cars are a few examples that only scratch the surface of shared ownership. There are new living environments like cohousing that have smaller living spaces to own or rent with larger common spaces so you can spend more time with your neighbors building community and socializing with them - not simply stay in your room by yourself. Some space is shared; some is for yourself.

To sum up these new models, there are 3 clear options:

• Buying - the item is your possession outright - and your responsibility.
• Renting - you can use the solution, but someone else worries about the maintenance. To them based on their values and how they operate, ownership has value.
• Peer sharing has you invested in the maintenance and share the cost of ownership during your time using the item. 

And I'm sure there will be new models in the future to accommodate new perspectives of ownership and cost.

 

Conclusion

How we view ownership is changing how we access, purchase, and use items. It is also linked to how we view worth and its value. Worth and value have intertwined definitions that are unclear yet related. It also merits its own blog post. 

How you view the value of something is linked to how you access it. Do you own it? Can you have it in your possession physically - can you touch it? Or is it an idea? Is this item going to bring you future wealth in some way?

Does ownership matter?
That’s the larger question. As a society, we grew to believe ownership was the answer to access to solutions to problems. But many solutions today in the sharing economy are reflecting trends that point to a different perspective. Maybe it is time to consider that ownership isn't the only last step for a buyer's journey or a way to measure worth. We need to expand our perspectives and consider all aspects of ownership, from maintenance and repair to replacement to stakeholder involvement to access to if something can even be "owned."

I'm curious what you think the future will bring us regarding new models to access solutions to our problems. Please add to the comments below!

Where's your head at? Why change can be easy or hard.

Where's your head at?  Basement Jaxx

 

Most people don't like change - especially changes to an app, Web site or product. Changes can't be controlled. They are made and you need to accept it, whether you want to or not.

Look at what happens when Facebook makes a change. Usually we'll see a number of posts from friends complaining about the change along with claims that they will stop using it because of these new features. 

And then that same person makes another 5 posts about politics, friends, family, cats, or other people's silly children.  

Recently, Apple announced the iPhone 7 and how they are removing the phone jack to support a wired headset device. Their perspective is that people need to move to Bluetooth/wireless devices already. I think that's a fair assessment in general given that Bluetooth has been around for a long long time and overall works pretty well. However, there's a catch - Bluetooth headsets work fairly well some of the time. They don't work 100% of the time like wireless keyboards. I know of 2 headsets that work pretty well; but most just don't. I have been on too many calls with people using Bluetooth headsets where they sound like they are 3 continents away. 

Technically, are we really ready?  

No. And Apple should have researched that more before making it's big decision (I would be surprised if they did research that before making the decision because historically, Apple rarely does user research. I have heard Apple employees say that innovation doesn't come from users and research. Horrified me a bit. I guess they hang out with Frog Design kids too often. But onwards!).

The issue I have with this phone jack change is the maturity of the technology. Does it mean I won't buy an Apple phone? Probably not. Does it mean I'll need to get a better headset? Sigh. Yes.

I'll accept the change unwillingly because I still want to use Apple products. But in a weird way, it's fun to complain about it, criticize them, and say how they should know better.

 

Does all change come with complaining? No.

I have witnessed UX changes that resulted in no user complains; if anything, people have used it more! In fact, I have worked on projects where we made a signficant UX change that results in increased revenue Day One of launch. Or people adopted it quickly at pre-launch from a tiny link on a page. 

So what's the differences between the 2 types changes: the Apple type where I'm unhappy about the change and need a workaround vs the other types that people adopt and love?

Before we address that, remember: people change because they want to change. You can't force people to change anything or decide to do any action. If your users don't want to do something in a new way - it won't happen. They will complain and find reasons not to do it. The drive to use your product needs to be stronger than the drive to not use it (the Facebook example - the drive to be connected is stronger than confusion about the new feature.).

But there is a silver lining regarding change. When people complain about a change, it's usually not about the change. It's about a related issue: transparency, insecurity, loss of control, etc. It is regarding something about them and their outlook on their own life. There are a number of articles about change and why it may not work and often, it's for personal reasons. It's where their heads are at regarding the change.

I complain about the phone jack because of the technology of it - or more accurately because I am too lazy to find a new headset. Which is true! 

 

Why are some changes successful? It meets these three criteria:

• The feature added was something that the customer wanted already. This is often the case for fast acceptance. If a customer has a particular feature or business fix in mind, he more easily accepts its implementation. It doesn't take long for that customer to jump right in and start using it. The new feature is a win for the customer.

• The feature was familiar (intuitive) to use. No training was necessary. This is also key for fast adoption. Someone can start using a tool right away because he doesn't need training for how to use it.

• Users are already thinking differently about how to use a feature or app. Sometimes people are using an app in a new way already. Or they have already thought about that feature and are counting the days for it to be implemented. The company is catching up to what the users need.

These are the traits that exist for every successful change I have observed. And by success, I mean seamless adoption and increased usage Day One and beyond.

Yes, this can and does happen frequently.

 

Why would people push back on a change? 

This has nothing to do with training or an explanation for the changes. Rejection of change is never about the actual change. It's about issues surrounding the change. People blame the feature or other reasons as to why it didn't work, but that's not the reason why someone isn't using a tool. People say they hate Facebook and still use it. People say they are sick of Apple but still buy the phone.

There are deeper reasons at hand as shown in an HBR article, a Forbes article, and this other article to explain change, but to sum it up:

• Loss of control. People had an understanding of how things worked before (or thought they did, which is a different problem for a different day) and now they don't. That's a scary place to be. Their world has shattered.

• Fear. This includes fear or failure, success, unknown, looking stupid, more work, unexpected impact, something new. Fear is a key factor for rejecting anything. And we're not talking about technology rejection because the technology simply isn't there. We are talking about a change that is valid and makes sense and it being rejected because...great question! There is no reason for the rejection. What is FEAR again? False Evidence Appearing Real. Yes.

• Unprepared to think in a different way. Change always requires a new way to think about the world. It sounds severe, but it's true. A change may include a different way to think about a product and how it works - and if you aren't ready to think about a product that way, then this new view won't happen and change is rejected. 

 

What are signs of rejecting an app or feature beyond the obvious of not using the new solution?

• Making fun of the new solution - who created it, who is managing it, what it does. Making fun of something is a coping mechanism to make it seem lesser and you greater so your ego can accept the circumstances. It's psychology.

• Raising constant excuses and roadblocks as to why a feature is a bad idea. And each roadblock is a reason that can be easily cured or resolved with a conversation or other item. This is about finding reasons not to do something, not trying to improve a situation.

• Blaming an individual for the change. I would blame Steve Jobs for features I didn't like on an Apple product. Or Bill Gates for Microsoft. Or Mark Zuckerberg for Facebook. Is that realistic? NO! A team created and implemented a feature. Not just one person wanted it - many people agreed with it and made it happen. Thinking that many people wanted a feature makes you feel small and insignifiant and possibly wrong. And who wants to be wrong? It's easier to blame one person for a change.

 

How can you reduce these challenges if you have a public app?

Usability testing and monitoring metrics. Get the feedback directly and fix the problem. A fairly straightforward approach. Users will be honest with you and let you know where their head is at with the change.

If you are implementing an internal tool and there is change how can you reduce this? There really isn't any predictor. Sure, there are things you can do - bring people along during the change management process, show them what you are doing, keep them involved. But even that doesn't guarantee that change will be accepted. People have emotions. Even if everyone agreed that the change was a great idea in the first place doesn't mean that when it is implemented that everyone will feel great about it. There may be insecurities, fears, loss. Those emotions need to be addressed during the process. It is less about the change itself and more how people feel about that change.

To sum up, change only happens when people (users) want the change as much as you do. And they may not want the change because of fear, they don't want to think about the situation in a new way, or they want to keep control over their own world. Change happens when people have made up their mind that a new feature or idea makes sense - or they have already made a decision that the feature or idea needs to be implemented now for them to be successful. 

Successful change is about where someone's head is at.  

What does it take to validate an identity around here?

My mother has lived in the same house in the same town for over 40 years. She has been going to the same bank for at least 20 years. Before that, she went to the bank a block away from the new bank for about 20 years. 

 

When she walks into the bank, everyone says, “Good morning, Mrs. Brodie!” 

 

She gives them her passbook (she may have an ATM card now; I know for a while she didn’t want one) and they complete her transactions. She doesn't need to show them an ID or anything to prove who she is  - they know she is who she claims she is.

 

My dad sometimes runs errands for my mom, which can include a visit to the bank. He has also lived in the same house in the same town for over 40 years. However, he rarely, if ever, goes to the bank. If he does, this is an example of his experience after he hands over his passbook:

“Sir, do you have an id?"

 

(He gives the person his driver's license.)

 

"Sir, are you sure you are Mr. Brodie?"

(That question took him a little while to process.)

Once, they even called my mom to be sure he was allowed to make a withdrawal because they didn't know who he was and thought someone was trying to scam my mom.

 

(I felt bad for my dad when I heard that story. It's nice that the bank is protective of my mother, but at the same time, what does the man need to do to prove his identity, besides calling the wife to make sure he has "permission" to be there?)

 

 

 

I strongly believe the best online experiences are translated from efficient and effective offline experiences.

 

With that said, why can't validating identity be similar to my mother's local bank experience rather than documents that could be forged (like my father's experience)?

 

And if we can't do this well offline, how can we translate validating identity online?

  

 

Let's start with how we validate identity offline.

 

My mother's offline identity is mainly based on her physical identity. But what constitutes her physical identity to make her Mrs. Brodie? 

• Her voice.
• Her speech patterns.
• Her appearance.
• Her personal preferences and tastes - from what she chooses to wear for clothes and shoes, her personal style, her nail color.
• Her mannerisms.
• Her signature.
• Her memory of past events and conversations.

At the bank, when they see her walk in, they know who she is from these traits. An imposter would be identified quickly from a conversation or an interaction that was "not quite right." It could even be as simple as the person not having her gait or her signature being a little weird. It's hard to replicate how someone acts - ask any impersonator.

 

This type of identity system works great in smaller, local environments where you interact with someone on a regular basis, but fails once you leave that environment.

 

Let's say you travel to another city and decide to stay in a hotel. When you check-in, you are asked to provide an ID and credit card. The hotel desk person looks at the picture and signatures to make sure everything matches. Your identity validation is based on possessing a set of documents that all say the same thing, almost like possessing a set of keys.

 

But what if it is all a lie?

 

In a way, once you leave somewhere where people can identify you from your personhood, you really have no way to confirm your own identity. No one can vouch for you. 

 

We live in a culture where we assume that by possessing a few of pieces of paper, you have a secured identity. If a picture matches what you look like, then we say you have a positive ID. If the signature matches, you have a secure ID.

 

What happens if someone has a stolen name and social security number, gets a credit card, creates a fake ID with their physical identity and your name, and uses their own signature for that name? (Sounds like the movie, Identity Theft, but it can and does happen.)

 

Sadly, we trust too much in possessing official documents to establish identity rather than the characteristics of personhood. Even experts agree.

Since the earliest days of human history, we’ve needed to verify who the people around us are. In more recent times, as the human population has surged into the billions, that need has only intensified. Are you part of the tribe or are you an outsider? According to research by Robin Dunbar, an anthropologist at Oxford University, the average person can only recognize about 1,500 faces. That’s a pretty astonishing number, but it pales in comparison to the numbers of people we come into contact with over a month or even a day.

Today, our identities are verified almost exclusively by one of two methods—things that you carry with you and things you remember. Driver’s licenses and passports are examples of the former, passwords and PINs the latter. But physical identification is easy to fake, and passwords are easily cracked by hackers, who then have nearly unfettered access to our credit cards, bank accounts, and personal data. Something needs to change.

--Tim De Chant, The Boring and Exciting World of Biometrics, Nova Next/PBS

 

We never really mastered the art of identification offline, so how can we do this online? Offline we rely on the possession of documents and cards, but those can be lost, stolen or forged. Online, we use a safe/lock metaphor for security and hiding personal information (not the same as someone's identity), but this is a muddled perspective of security and identity validation - and they are not the same thing.

 

Passwords are like combinations to a safe. Sure, you need the key to get into what has been locked, but it doesn't establish your identity. Anyone could own a key or get a combination to access data.

 

If we were to purely map an offline process to online, how would you identify a person? How could you map their personality? 

 

 

Biometrics.

 

Voice recognition technology is one specialization area of biometrics (he's a brief definition of voice recognition vs speech recognition. Voice recognition is more about identifying the speaker rather than what he is speaking about, or speech recognition.). By identifying someone through his own unique identifier - his voice - you can quickly validate his identity. It is better than a signature.

The Tolly Group was hired by BSI to try and breach BioSig-ID™'s biometric security. Over 100 people unlimited access to try and validate against a website protected with BioSig-ID™. Additionally they were informed of the password used "Mom". After over 10,000 attempts at breaching our security BioSig-ID™ blocked 99.97% of the attempts.

--Biometric Signature ID

 

There are other aspects of biometrics. DNA (although intrusive), retina scans, face recognition technology, and others. The beauty of these technologies is that identity validation is based on what makes you unique rather than possessing a key/password. 

Unlike traditional identification which you must either remember or carry with you, biometrics are you. Fingerprints, voice analysis, iris patterns, vein matching, gait analysis, and so on. Such traits are unique to an individual and often, though not always, incredibly difficult to fake.

--Tim De Chant, The Boring and Exciting World of Biometrics, Nova Next/PBS

Although biometrics are a more accurate method of identity validation because it more closely resembles how we identify others every day, this approach does come with a price.

Some of the anxiety stems from the fact that biometrics are a part of who we are—they’re not an internet username that can be easily discarded or created anew. Biometrics will likely persist in government and private databases, accreting information whether we like it or not.

--Tim De Chant, The Boring and Exciting World of Biometrics, Nova Next/PBS

And that is a scary risk - how does biometric information get stored and used? And do we trust those purposes?

 

 

So what to do?

 

Rather than programing computers to become more like humans and identify others using personal attributes, we should perfect the offline identification process beyond documents and incorporate ethical systems around data use. 

 

Nefarious uses of biometric information may sound like something out of a bad sci-fi movie, but the opportunities for misuse are very real and if something were to happen, the costs could be very high. I mean, stealing biometric information would be like literally stealing someone's personhood - and then how could someone prove who he was or wasn't? 

 

 

Let's return to the original story about my dad and the local bank. To make it simple, let's say the bank decided not to implement a biometric identity program. And let's say my dad went back to the local bank and decided to withdraw money from his account. Would the bank teller still want to call my mother to confirm his identity? Yes.

 

Is there a better offline method to validate identity today? No.

 

 

(Biometrics depends on my dad participating in the program. If he didn't, we are at the offline method for identity validation. If he did participate, then there is the risk of what happens if the bank is hacked or misuses that data.)

 

How do we change this situation? As a society, we need to rethink how we define identity beyond possessing documents. (To note, having a chip in our bodies is similar to possessing a document - it is about possessing a thing.) Until this happens, we are stuck with our current models and metaphors, which are open to fraud and theft and continue flawed identity validation.

 

 

Thoughts about sketching: why we need to do it

I love to doodle. I have been doodling since I was a little kid. Flowers. Geometric shapes. Infinity 8's. 

Doodling led to my sketching and drawing obsession, putting my thoughts and ideas on paper to make them more concrete, shareable, and lasting.

I never saw myself as an artist, although a few art teachers tried to nudge me into that direction. I saw myself as a designer - I was on a mission to sketch objects to be used. When I was 10, I was fascinated with fashion design. I spent hours sketching outfits, pushing my imagination to limits to create new looks for my Barbie doll. My dreams of being a fashion designer were dashed when I realized I couldn't sew well and wasn't sure how I could learn.

I switched to do math and engineering instead, and quickly realized that engineering required sketching and drawing as well. 

I learned how the engineering pros sketch and draw from my Dad. My father was a draftsman in the Air Force, and growing up I always watched him sketching/drawing plans to fix the house. He would draw elaborate plans for home improvements, from the kitchen to the porch to the bathroom, and determine what's needed for lumber and supplies. He also kept a sketchbook/notebook to jot down ideas and refine them later. He was an early Sketchnoter and infographic creator. 

What I learned: sketch often, draw with a pencil, measure twice and cut once. 

 

Sketching makes it real

It wasn't until I started working on the Web that I realized the power of a sketch. In the early days, strategists did information architecture. I hung out with some of the strategists at ATG and learned how to create wireframes and site maps longhand. I think I annoyed them because I asked them a gazillion questions and hung out in their "war rooms", learning how they thought about the Web and why they made certain decisions. I was curious about how they mapped their thoughts about how a Web site should work.

I found it fascinating how a diagram could make a very abstract idea more real and give it life. Until then, I only experienced how words could express an abstract idea in a document. I mean, I was an English major and wrote a bunch of papers through grad school, so that was my only world reference for communication techniques. A diagram was far better - people could see what I was thinking (and research has confirmed that it is easier to process and understand. There is information about this on the SlideShare blog as well.).

I learned that I could sketch a vision and make it real.

 

Sketching vs. drawing (even electronically)

I like sketching to make my ideas tangible. To me, there is nothing better than feeling the stroke of a pen on paper. You can see it, you can feel it (ok, maybe not feel it so much, unless you can feel the subtle ink bumps on paper), and you can experience it. I like to turn a thought or idea into a physical experience.

We can sketch electronically with different apps, but it just isn't as tangible as a sketch on paper with a pen. Electronic files just aren't permanent; they are bytes and numbers. They can be deleted by accident if your hard drive dies and you don't have backup. If there is no electricity, your idea is locked away for super safe keeping on a device somewhere.

If anything, the electronic tools are more like the pencil with an eraser for drawing. You can easily make adjustments, move items around, and in the end, turn it into a final version by "inking" it, or just printing it.

Why I like pen and paper? Ideas written on paper won't go away unless you physically throw it away or burn it.

(We know our history through verbal and written tradition. Written tradition seems to carry more weight and can be a little more accurate - it records a perspective in time.)

 

Diagrams can transform into action

I sketch before creating a site map, a wireframe, or even PowerPoint strategy slides. I'll consider the idea I'm trying to present, make sure what I want to express is focused enough to be on one page or two (read the section about Tufte and PowerPoint), and figure out a way to express it visually, without a lot of annotations. Once I feel confident enough, I'll go to my computer and finish the drawing in InDesign, PowerPoint or another visual tool. 

Sometimes, the initial sketch will encourage me to split the thought out or reconsider how I'm approaching it. Having a strategy or idea is great, but if you can't communicate it, no one can take action on it. You need to be able to present your idea so that:

• it's simple enough that people understand it at a single glance
• it's exciting enough in the presentation so that someone will want to work with you on it
• it's straightforward enough so someone can easily create a plan from it

When you sketch an idea out, you should walk away from it and come back to it to see if it meets that criteria and then start creating the visual.

 

How do white boards work into this?

White board sketching is great for a group to express their ideas. Each person can grab a marker and make their ideas and thoughts tangible for that meeting. Sure, the thoughts can be erased, but a picture of the board on a phone can fix that (as does printable whiteboards). Often a white board sketch session needs to be recorded into a PowerPoint slide, diagram, spreadsheet - something. But the white board allows the team to create an idea, everyone add to it, and make it a group contribution. 

(Read more from Lynne Cazaly on this.)

In the end, one person will create the slides and the group will comment on them, making sure that the information is simple, exciting and straightforward.

 

Why sketching is great to do?

• Make abstract ideas tangible
• Gives a long life to ideas
• Helps you to clarify how you communicating an idea 
• Can get you more buy-in for your idea
• Becomes an tool to influence others and collaborate 

 

Why do we all need to sketch?

There is such a need for more effective communication, and the best way for us to do that is to include images and text together.

If we are all creating infographics, we need to take a step back, figure out what we are trying to communicate, and experiment with different approaches to communicate it well. Sketching allows for that.

Sketch on a white board, in a notebook, include text with the images. Get inspired with books like the Sketchnote Handbook, Edward Tufte's books, the Napoleon March chart, or Lynne Cazaly's chisel tipped pen. Explore infographics. Get a Moleskin or other notebook, a pen and pencil, and start sketching your thoughts. 

Make your ideas tangible and long lasting - and explore new ways to communicate that idea to others. 

5 Elements of Discoverable Functionality

The other day I went to watch a movie on Netflix and I got this screen:

I'm not sure why I got this screen. I am the only user on this account. I have maybe watched 1-2 children's movies (Babe is a classic). Ok, I lied. I watched at least 5 - including Ella Enchanted. But that's not enough to merit me seeing a kids option given that I watch so much SciFi. All I kept thinking: What's this Kids option? Why is that appearing?

Every time I open the Netflix app, I have to choose which account I want to use. I'm not sure why the system can't remember which account I chose and leave it selected. Or maybe the app should ask me first if I share my device or account with others, so I understand why this screen is appearing. All. The. Time.

I wanted to remove this extra Kids account since I don't have any. I can't manage my account at the Netflix app (a disappointment unto itself. Even Hulu allows some minimal account access), so I went to my profile page on netflix.com to get this:

All I had to ask myself on this screen is, again: why is a Kids channel there? How did it get there? I didn't add it.

This got me to think about discover-ability and what works.

 

Functionality needs to be discoverable, but at the same time it can't be intrusive. Overview/Intro screens are great cases of discover-ability gone wrong (here are 6 alternatives to that approach). So is this profile idea at Netflix. 

What are the elements of discoverable features?

• Not intrusive. The system's not asking a personal question, intruding on your privacy, or the like. In fact, you may not even realize that the system is doing anything to customize or personalize your view. The experience to configure your system is part of the general site/app experience. 

• It's integrated. It's part of the experience. It doesn't seem tacked on like an afterthought. Sure, functionality can have the appearance that it looks like the rest of the app, but does it fit the experience-style of the rest of the app? 

• It proves useful. After you experience the new feature, you want to use it again because it helped you complete a task - something you always wanted to do. 

• It's available if you need it - obvious and hidden at the same time. If you want to use it, you can easily find it. If you don't need it, you don't have to use it and it's tucked away for later. It's not shouting in your face all the time.

• It makes sense and is familiar. As you know, there is no such thing as intuitive, but there are ways to find features that make more sense than others. I guess this is the challenge of UX - designing for general approaches to solve a problem rather than a specific mindset or way of thinking. It has to work for most everyone.

Which sites or apps are effective in this? Twitter is pretty straightforward to figure out. So is LinkedIn in general. Facebook has its challenges. Google maps generally makes sense. As does OpenTable.

Which apps do you like that has easily discoverable functionality? I'm curious to hear your thoughts!

 

 

5 ways to stop second guessing user intent. Choose clarity.

I was using Lync to start an online meeting. The place where I work uses Lync as an online chat, phone and screen sharing tool - it is like a variation of Skype. What I like about it is that I don't need to use a phone and can access a meeting quickly. What I don't like about it are the perpetual confirmation screens asking me details about what I want to do.

The button options are clear - phone, chat, video, screenshare, invite other people. Not a lot of question there.

Although the buttons are clear, Lync still asks a lot of questions:

• Do I want to use Lync for my phone, an outside line, or have Lync call me?
• Do I want to share my entire desktop or an app only?
• Do I want to chat on the screen with the phone call?

All of these questions all the time is more than annoying.

How would you feel if you saw this screen every single time you made a Lync call:

Sure, there is a checkbox so I can remove the window, but why not after the first experience, encourage the user to save what was selected as a preference?

Or better yet, why is there a need to show this window at all if the user has a headset plugged-in to his computer?

I have been slightly late to calls because I forgot to make an extra click to remind the app that I use a headset through my computer. Or I didn't share my screen properly because Lync wanted to know if I wanted to share an app or my desktop.

In UX design, you have to make some educated guesses as to what the user most likely wants to do. Some guesses are based on data; some guesses are based on common sense; some guesses are based on research. 

5 ways to determine what the user really wants to do:

• If there are peripherals plugged into a computer that the app can leverage, most likely the user wants to use them. Apple does a great job with this. If a headset or headphones are plugged into a computer, the system automatically uses them. It doesn't ask "Do you want to use your speakers? Do you want to use your headset?" That's just silly. And if the user wants to use system speakers and the headset is still plugged in - the user will catch on when he doesn't hear anything. Skype handles this well too. If I'm trying to call someone through Skype, most likely I'm not going to want to use my phone. And if I do want to use my phone, I'll probably use Skype through my phone. My phone number is there, but why would I use it? If I didn't have a a headset plugged in, sure, I may to use a phone. Ask me that then.

• Collect data in the app and default to the most popular case. Apps can collect information about users and what they tend to use. If you create an app, try to do this. Web apps often do this. It's free usability data!

• Usability Testing. I know, I'm being captain obvious here. But you can learn a lot from usability testing. Ask your users what they prefer in a session reviewing your app. I'm sure asking them question after question and showing the same screen all the time isn't appealing to them. Let them give input into how it should work.

• Default to the most inclusive case and allow exceptions. For example, default to sharing the desktop and include a way for the user to narrow his scope. At least the sharing process is started and goes to the most complete solution. It is always easier to narrow; easier than having to select an option. 

• Build a memory into the system to remember what the user typically does. If a user has a headset plugged in and frequently uses the headset, have that be the default case and give the user an easy way to do something else. Don't ask the user every time what he wants to do. Or if the user always shares the desktop, offer that as the default. If the user often shares PowerPoint, default to sharing that. And if that app isn't on, present a message on the screen reminding the user that app isn't open and share the desktop instead.

Users don't need to keep deciding. I think  there are 2 reasons why we revert to this paradigm:

• We believe that asking more questions will direct the user to what he wants. We do this with phone systems. The challenge is that people will often select "0" in a phone system because the questions get tedious. . 
• Microsoft introduced the option: "Don't show this window again," after confirming an action the user selected yet again. That's not a usability strategy. That's a way to get around building a system that remembers how a user works to create a personalized experience for him. Ideally, a user should select an action and the computer should execute it. Why do you need to confirm that you want to exit a program? The system should automatically save documents and close them. Sure, it takes extra work to program this in, but it's far more user friendly and what a user expects to happen.

Stop second guessing your users. If your button/link is clear - they will do what is needed as they expect. Don't make it harder on them.

 

6 Alternatives to mobile tutorial screens

I went onto my Citibank app the other day to move some money around and pay some bills. (I know - I pick on Citibank a lot. I must love them, right?) Apparently they made some updates to their app, which I'm happy about; it shows that any fees I pay are being put to good use.

First, I had to agree to new terms and conditions. Fine - to be expected.

Then I was presented with a screen similar to what's below, that didn't have my totals on it and a bunch of messages noting functionality. 

WHAT THE HECK!

 

Of course I didn't read the screen (let's face it - no one really reads anymore; people skim). I panicked because:

• Some of my accounts were missing from the list - where did they go?
• Why is the total low?!?! (Not on this screen - the initial screen I saw which I didn't take a screenshot of) Where did that money come from?
• What are these transactions? 

The main thought I had looking at this screen was: who's account is this? Because it isn't mine!

When I realized this was a fake page with messages on it, I felt stupid and wanted to get rid of it, but I couldn't find the Close Tutorial button. It blended with the background and I thought it was part of the screen. Why wasn't that button blue or something? Or why wasn't there an "x" in the upper right to close this? Why didn't this look like a layer? 

Talk about confusing!

After I figured out that this was a help screen, I did what I needed to do in the app and exited. Weird - I didn't think these types of screens existed anymore in apps because they are misleading and difficult to use.

Later that day, I opened an upgraded Box app and got this:

 

Then after going thru each page of the tutorial, I go this:

Dropbox did something similar - confusing!

And just last night I got something similar on the iPad app with Huffington Post. Some screens appeared that had instructional text to introduce me to new features and functionality. It was yet another forced tour! 

Unlike the site/app tours of the past - you can't exit these and it's unclear how to get them off your phone screen (no x's in corners, no next buttons - you just keep tapping the screen, hoping this "feature" goes away).

What is up with this revised trend of multi-page tutorials/instructions and "forced tours" that you can't exit?

 

Integrating new features/functions into an app is always difficult. Most users will stick to using what they know how to use rather than try something new. There are better ways to let users learn about new functionality rather than instructional screens (that no one really reads by the way).

Here are 6 alternatives to forced tours/tutorial screens:

• Allow users the ability to discover new features on their own without help - just make sure functionality is easy to find - they may figure out how something works on their own and not need help. Maybe give them a few months and see how they use the app? Users are typically more advanced than app teams think. This approach requires usability testing to be sure features are simple and straightforward - and usability testing should happen anyway during the development process.

• Guidance through an app - rather than provide a direct paragraph of instructions, provide tips, tricks and recommendations along the way. Make sure the advice isn't intrusive and easy to get rid of. If help is presented in a constructive, subtle way, it will be well-received. If it is presented so that a user can't get rid of it - probably not. In-line tips are probably best. 

• Make sure new features/functions are leveraging a familiar user experience or metaphor - I don't like to use the word "intuitive" - we only think functionality is intuitive because we are used to doing things a certain way that is based in our culture and understanding of the world. People in general prefer familiar interactions. These tend to perform better in usability research, amyway. Going too far out of the box won't always win user's hearts.

• Videos - Videos are probably the best way to communicate ideas to users. And it's especially helpful to use to describe new functionality. Rather than screens and documentation, provide a link to a video. Use text like, "Want a better way to do x?" or "Learn how to get more from this app." A 2-3 minute video can influence anyone to change habits more than a screen that frustrates the user's experience with an app. 

• Incorporate more voice commands - Rather than relying on tapping as the only interaction someone can have with an app, allow the user the ability to use voice commands. And then having a voice response from the app could make the experience more pleasant, more direct, and just more helpful.

• Leverage other ways to communicate new features to users OUTSIDE the app - Send an email to your install base that links to a demo video for the new features. Or create a game out of the new features on a site so they are learning while playing. Introducing users to new features this way provides an educational component to your product and service - and is less intrusive than showing an instruction screen that few will read.

Help is becoming a thing of the past if we design for users first. Many of the computing constructs we are familiar with are very foreign to how we naturally think - but they great for how a computer works. We have grown accustomed to if/then and categorical thinking because we had to learn how to "talk" to the computer rather than the other way around.

Should a user need instruction to learn how to use an app? Shouldn't the app's design conform to how the user thinks? Keep that in mind when designing. 

Also keep in mind that no one reads anymore - well, ok, people do read, but they don't like to read instructions. 

Raise your hand if you ever read the instructions fully to put together a toy, an IKEA shelf, or electronic device?

(Yep - thought so :) ).

We need to move away from the familiar construct of reading instructions and design apps to be more familiar to use right away. No training should be necessary.

And if training is required, maybe it is time to reconsider UX practices leveraged in the app to make it easier to use.

Make password recovery easy! 5 ways Spirit Airlines could improve their experience

Forget your password?

It may is fairly basic functionality on most sites and apps that require membership, but it is one of the most important features available. We all have dozens of passwords that we need to remember daily - many are variations upon one or two. And its hard to remember which one you used where. Most people forget their passwords at one time or another. I constantly forget. This feature is my best friend.

I flew on Spirit Airlines Sunday. And because of the nature of Spirit, I really wanted to check-in online Saturday night and avoid a number of fees. However, I forgot my account password.

I thought: Have no fear, password assistance is here!

So I clicked on the "Forget your password?" link, entered my email address, and then got a pop up window/layer thing I needed to click again -- a two-step process. Why would anyone do this? Jef Raskin would turn over in his grave to see this. So unnecessary.

Did you see the message on the screen - Wait up to 30 minutes for an email?

Up to 30 minutes to change your password?

A question to the developers: why could it take that long to generate such an email?

 

Anyway, I got frustrated and called support to see if I could maybe make some headway there with my password issues. I only called to get a recording and hear that it could take up to an hour for the email.

An hour? Seriously?

So I stopped trying to get a new password on Saturday night, and therefore stopped trying to check into my flight for Sunday. I figured I would try again on Sunday morning when my patience was refreshed.

Sunday morning I got a bunch of emails from Spirit to change my password, none of those passwords worked, so I tried the "Forgot your password" 2-step business and I got an email in 3 minutes this time. Awesome!

I used the password and got to a screen where I could enter a new password - awesome!

I tried entering an all text password (there are no password rules or any indicator that the password needs to be secure), and unfortunately, I had a typo in one of my entered passwords. This is where the infinite loop started and I got massively confused. I saw this screen as my error message: 

How did I get here from where I was? A mystery!

So I used the password that I knew got me to the next screen and tried again. And again. And again. I went in this infinite loop, until I tried a password that come to find out was what I used previously and then got this:

ACK!

This is no longer security - this is just pure madness! Give me instructions for what makes a good password and stop making me guess already! 

I finally got out of the infinite loop and could carry on with my life. I doubt that account will be dusted off and used any time soon after this experience.

 

5 lessons from Spirit's site:

• A user should receive a password retrieval email in 5 minutes or less. There is no excuse for a system to take 30 minutes to auto-generate an email. 

• Provide password guidance. Sites that don't do this frustrate their users and they will go away. There is no harm in including an error message or a line of instruction to let the user know what is expected. A rule is a rule - and we all want to uphold good security. But when you don't tell us, it becomes a game of trial and error - and no one has time for that.

• Put error messages on the screen where the error is. (I know, basic, but need to say it.) Error messages should be near the error, otherwise, the user will get confused and not understand what he did wrong.

• Infinite loop scenarios are discouraging and confusing. Guide the user to complete the task. The system's structure shouldn't be first priority. Users are giving you money to use a product/service - their needs should be first. Systems don't pay the bills (last I checked, they created them.).

• Pressing the return/enter key should have the same function as selecting the submit button on a form. (Another basic principle.) This is pretty standard, but for those of us still on keyboards, we don't switch between taps/mouse clicks and the keyboard unless needed. An enter key should do the trick if a user is filling out a form (tab between fields and enter/return to submit the form). The desktop system isn't dead yet - and won't be for a while - so designing purely for taps and mobile isn't a wise choice.

 

 

 

Browser compatibility - a new old problem that's really about honesty

I was really excited to go check out this new Web app. I heard all sorts of great things about it. So I opened Safari on my trusty Mac, entered the URL and viola! I got to the site. I created an account - easy peasy. Got to the app - and I could do nothing! Absolutely nothing. Nothing worked.

I opened Chrome - same problem. I called the number on the site and they told me, "Oh yes, we support IE on PCs only."

I have only 2 responses to this:

1. Seriously?
2. Why didn't you just tell me that in the first place? 

Today, there are a number of ways someone can use an app - Web or mobile (and for mobile there is phone and tablet). This is good and bad.

• Good because there is always a way for you to use an app, anywhere on any device
• Bad because there needs to be at least 3-4 versions of an app available for users that developers need to build and maintain

Even though users today are pretty savvy, demanding and can easily figure out how to use Web and device apps, they can be understanding if you tell them why something may not work. 

Back in the day, if someone was using an archaic browser, a message would appear to tell the user to upgrade and which current browser versions were supported. Sure, that's not ideal. But in some ways, the site was doing a service for the users.

If you are 4 browser versions behind and you don't know - someone should tell you. Almost like how someone should tell you if your deodorant let out or you have lettuce between your teeth.

Now if an app is in Beta and there is only an iPhone (or Andriod) version available, the company lets you know. And if you are lucky, they tell you when Android (of iPhone) will be available. If they are smart, they use it as an opportunity to build their mailing list - collect email addresses of interested people and let them know when it's available. And let them know when other updates are available as well.

So what is up with this "trend" that Web apps not supported by all major browsers don't notify users when their browser/platform isn't supported?  

Users understand what Beta versions are. Users understand that you may have a new product that isn't available everywhere. Why hide that? Why let them go to your site, create an account and get into an app that they can't use - or better yet, can't understand why they can't use it? If you want to talk about lousy user or customer experiences - there you go!

Sure, everything should be supported, but not every company has the time, resources or staff to do that. So what's the next best option?

It's time to get back to honesty. It's time to look at the commonly used Web browsers and devices and let users know if the experience on that device/browser/app combination will be good, bad or better somewhere else. There's no reason to be ashamed. Sure, there may be missing versions or unsupported browsers; but if you are creating an app for businesses (mostly PCs using Internet Explorer) and the app isn't great to use on Safari, it's ok to tell users that if they come to your site using Safari. Or if your app doesn't offer a great experience for mobile devices - let users know that and offer a link to the App Store (Yelp and LinkedIn do that - and although it can be a little annoying, it reminds me that there are better ways to use their apps than Web). Provide users with alternatives to get the best experience.

And these alternatives don't need to be a screen that takes over the page as a modal, pop-up, or even as a separate page. Code exists to identify the browser/device being used - so that makes all of this fairly straightforward to do. The challenge is figuring out how to handle the compatibility challenge.

Here are some ideas:

• A simple message at the top of the screen - a module similar to an error message or other notification.
• A module above the browser that offers the app option (similar to what iPhone offers)
• A form to sign-up to be notified when the version you need is available.
• A form to sign-up for an invitation when a "Beta" version is available.
• A link to get the most current browser, app, etc.

I love signing up for an invite - it makes me as a user feel special and it is the best opportunity for a company to capture new users! Win-win for all!

In this crazy world of change, users are sympathetic when you don't support every browser/device combination under the sun. Just be honest about it so you don't waste their time. And don't forget to use that moment as a business opportunity!