Watching ‘average users’: Word
It’s easy to forget how useful it is to watch less technical people use some common programs, and how helpful observation is as a tool to understand the ‘average’ user. I recently watched someone using MS Word (2003 I think), and it was…enlightening. They made a large number of ‘errors’ when using MS Word, but as we know as usability specialists, its not the the user that creates errors – the software does.
The task was relatively simple – design some worksheets, including textboxes, and pictures, and lay them out in an eye-pleasing manner. I’m sure there are many more appropriate packages to make this in than Word, but it was the user’s software of choice, due to familiarity, and the task shouldn’t be beyond MS Word. I observed, and let them lead the interaction, but advised when they asked for help (naughty I know, but it wasn’t a formal lab setting!)
The lab was busy that day anyway...
How my ‘less-technical user’ used Word:
I noted down (obviously away from the user) some of the more ‘interesting’ characteristics of how they used Word.
- Used the ‘cut’ function as a ‘delete’ (with no understanding of how it links to paste). Taken out of context from “cut and paste”, ‘cut’ would more likely imply removing or ending something, and so this mistake is understandable. Incidentally this method has some pluses. I still don’t know how to remove a table easily (not just the information within it), and cut seems to do this.
- No knowledge of the alignment tools, and so using spaces as a method to align text to the center or right. Obviously ran into problems when editing the text later, as changes would make the text run over the end of the line, ruining the formatting.
- Drew horizontal lines, across the page (i.e. a space to write in your own answer) with –‘s. Seems a pretty effective method, even though I’m sure Word has its own way of doing this. Is there a better way of doing it?
- Displayed difficulty moving images in Word. Is it right that you have to click on an image twice to move it? The first click just gives you resize options, which confused the user.
- Had difficulty with resizing objects. What happens if you make an image so big that it falls off the edge of the paper, and you cannot see the border to make it small again? I guess you could format picture, and manually change the size, but this is an entirely different method of resizing, and isn’t cognitively related to the standard way.
- Constant (constant!) rewriting of words, when word autocapitalised/auto formatted them in an undesired way (which was seemingly every autoformat). User had to delete the word, and re-write each time.
What could word do to improve?
This immediately throws up some questions about how Word was developed. It’s clear that the tools available, such as the alignment, or horizontal lines, are not making their functionality transparent to new users. It wasn’t clear to my user that they existed, or how they should be functioning. Obviously just having the icon on the toolbar isn’t enough, and this should be rethought.
This was also the case with image manipulation. The functions that the user needed do exist in Word (i.e. resizing, moving), but are modal in nature, and so are difficult to find, and don’t offer a consistent user experience to someone who is not familiar with Word’s nuances.
It’s also clear with auto format in particular that the system isn’t adapting to the user’s needs. The constant changes that Word was making to the user’s document, which were then undone each time only created a large degree of frustration in the user. The software should be learning how the user wants auto format to work, and adjust to their preference. In this user’s case, it was causing trouble, and should have turned itself off (or at least given the option)
What they need is some sort of helpful assistant
What should we learn from this?
It occurred to me that these issues were not unique to the user I watched since I encounter similar problems with Word. The difference is I’ve had enough familiarity to learn the workarounds, or solutions to these problems that Word throws at you. For example, it’s an unthinking reaction to press Ctrl+Z after Word incorrectly auto-formats things incorrectly. My user just hadn’t used the program for long enough to train that reaction, and so word’s error became more of a big deal.
Its important when considered usability to realise that users aren’t just like you. If you are in a position to make a difference with usability, it’s very likely you are not an ‘average user’, and as such its difficult to comprehend how ‘average users’ use software.
‘Average users’ are not stupid. They are your mum, and just don’t have the time, or effort to put into learning these workarounds, or making them second nature. The solution, rather than ‘educating’ users, is to make the programs better; make programmers understand who their users are, and how they use the programs. And make them program for the ‘average’ users, rather than the power users. And that is the point of usability.
Rocket Surgery Made Easy by Steve Krug – Book Review
Steve Krug’s new book, Rocket Surgery Made Easy, aims to be the only book someone new to user experience will need to start performing usability testing on their company’s website. And, with a few qualifying remarks, it is.
Krug’s previous book, Don’t Make Me Think, aimed to introduce the idea of web usability to a general audience, and had a number of key characteristics. It was short, designed to be read during a plane journey, and it was accessible, so that anyone could read it and understand usability. It also had a chapter on performing usability testing, which was removed in the second edition. Rocket Surgery Made Easy is that chapter.
In the decade since the emergence of this first book, Krug has been honing his usability testing skills, and through running numerous workshops, has perfected how to teach usability testing. This book is the summary of that experience, and in a wonderfully brief and readable style, is the only book someone new to user experience will need to start performing usability testing. Looking at that statement in more detail will give a deeper insight into the book.
Pictured: Steve Krug, international man of mystery
“The only book”
Krug’s book is a complete introduction to testing your company’s website, and guides the reader through every step of the process, from recruitment, and pre-test setup (including the equipment required), through to running the session and the debrief. The book also offers all the test-scripts and task cards you’ll need. Throughout the process Krug offers his best practise techniques, useful maxims to remember, and pitfalls to avoid. Essentially, you could start performing usability tests with this book alone as a reference.
“someone new to user experience”
This book aims to be an introduction, and so requires no prior knowledge (although reading his other book wouldn’t be a bad start). It also assumes that you are not a usability professional, just an interested party at a company, and that there isn’t a large degree of company buy-in, and believes that many rounds of semi-amateur testing is superior to one round of professional testing, which is valid. Because it assumes you don’t have a large amount of support from your company, in particular monetarily, it focuses on how to perform usability testing with a large degree of constraints – how to do it cheaply, how to do it quickly (just one morning a month) & how to get people interested through pastry!
“will need to start”
Because of its small size, Krug’s book is only designed as an introduction to usability testing, and won’t contain any new information if you’ve done this before. At best you could pick up a few best practises, but you’re not the intended audience. Just for you, the book has suggestions for further reading “for overachievers only”, with some interesting books to continue studying this field, but the book is largely aimed at newcomers to the field.
“performing usability testing”
Also due to its brevity, the book only covers one on one think aloud tests with websites, and only hints that other forms of usability testing possible. The book ends with a short chapter on remote research, but only hints at the possibilities that we saw at the UX Brighton event. Other types of usability research, such as quantitative methods, expert analysis, or focus groups, are left out entirely of the books remit. Although the book offers a complete solution, it’s a complete solution for one particular type of usability testing, and only covers websites (although the skills could easily be applied elsewhere).
Its not rocket scien.... oh.
Conclusion
Krug’s new book is short, and simple. However neither of these points are negative. It’s short because it has to be, to introduce a wide audience to usability testing, and to emphasise how easy it is to begin. It’s simple, because usability testing can be simple, and done for just a morning a month. If you’re someone who has been doing usability testing for years, or a professional who does a large amount of usability testing, perhaps it’s better to look elsewhere. However if you’re looking for an introduction to usability testing, having never donae it before, or just need a short walkthrough guide to getting usability testing started at your workplace, Krug’s book should definitely be your first choice.
Improving the Player Experience – How to make great loading screens
Players expect loading times, and recognise that they are a necessary evil. It’s a given that most, if not all games, will have them. Since a loading screen is encountered by the player multiple times, it’s important to think about their experience when they encounter these screens, as it will undoubtedly form part of their impression of your game. This is often forgotten by developers.
Games are leisure activities, and so it’s important to make sure that the player’s impression is positive at all times. Today we’ll be looking at some good ways that developers have handled loading screens, and some failed attempts that have caused players to complain, or turn off games completely, and coming up with guidelines on how to design a good loading screen.
Please wait for the rest of this post...
Good loading screens
Loading screens don’t have to have lead to a bad player experience, and as proved by:
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Call of Duty doesn’t have loading screens. It has briefings. While the game loads, COD:MW2 uses this necessary ‘lull’ in game play to forward the story, and give the player a description of the back story for the next level. The effect of this on the player is that, instead of being booted out and told them “wait here for more fun”, the player is given the opportunity to continue interacting with the game.
When I played COD:MW2, I had no idea what the story was, or what was going on. But the briefings distracted me enough from the loading screens that I didn’t care, and didn’t notice I was being kept waiting for the next part of the game.
Ridge Racer
What about games that don’t have stories? Ridge Racer, for the PSX, gave you a mini-game to play while the game loaded (Arcade classic Galaxian I believe), hence keeping the player entertained. Namco have repeated this successful formula in other games, such as the Tekken series. Simply giving the player something to do while they wait can mean the difference between a player who gets frustrated and gives up, and one who continues playing.
Bad loading screens
However, some games make fatal mistakes when it comes to loading screens, which detract from the player experience:
Remember me?
Resident Evil
Most people’s memories of the early Resident Evils include the door animations (link to youtube). Every time you exited a room, there would be a short pause, and the same ‘loading’ animation. Every time. No wonder people remember, and got sick of them. Although initially covering the pause that the system needed to load the next room, eventually they just became a ‘feature’, as evident in Resident Evil Nemesis, where the boss character breaks down some doors, effectively destroying the loading times between the joining rooms. The danger of boring a player by forcing them to sit through a repetitive animation is a lesson not yet learnt, as evident in Penny Arcade’s comic on Mass Effect
Sim City 2000
2 minutes to load the start screen? Another loading time after you’ve selected to load an existing game, or start a new one? This may be a technical issue, but superfluous loading screens are going to immediately detract from the player experience
How to make a great loading screen
Loading screens have improved a lot in the past 10 years, and some features of good loading screens are common to many games. To make a good loading screen, consider including some of the following:
- Include tips/facts/story on the loading screens. Instead of just saying ‘loading’ on the loading screen, think of what the player may want to know. Is there a special technique in the game that you could tell the player about? Is there some background story you want to impart? This downtime is ideal for letting them know
- Hide the loading process where possible. Tony Hawk’s Unleashed claimed to have no loading times. It did, but the player never saw them, as it loaded the next level seamlessly as the player passed through some adjoining rooms. By never taking control away from the player, the player doesn’t have to know that the game is loading in the background.
- If you do have to have a loading screen, make sure you keep usability heuristics in mind, and make the loading progress transparent. Show the progress of the load (really show it, not just an infinitely spinning wheel!), so the player doesn’t have to wonder how long they will be waiting, or worse, if its frozen.
- If you’re Namco, put a mini game on the loading screen. If you’re not, I believe Namco have copyrighted this. So better not.
By thinking about a holistic player experience, including the menu system, and loading screens, as opposed to just considering the gameplay, you can improve player’s impression of your game, and make them more likely to enjoy it. The small amoun
A Terrible User Experience & how to fix it– Zoomerang.com
When running a website, its important to make sure that the user can achieve their goal with the minimal fuss. This is especially important if you are selling, or trying to sell, a commercial service. I recently had to use Zoomerang.com, a survey site, and had a few notes about the user experience. As you’ll remember, I don’t rant often…
I’m in the process of designing a GPS game, and am currently discovering the functional requirements for the project. As UX practitioners, we know that involving the user is of critical importance at this stage, hence we designed a questionnaire to establish peoples experience, and perception of GPS games, and what they’d like a GPS game to be like. (linked here)
When at university, our internet access goes through a proxy server, which blocks unsuitable content. For some reason, this includes surveymonkey.com, a site I’ve used a few times in the past to construct online surveys. Interestingly, the ‘site blocked’ dialogue said “for survey sites, try zoomerang.com”. However, when I search for some hardcore action, it never gives me alternate suggestions for that. Have I uncovered a conspiracy? Nonetheless, I followed the link.
And so I ended up on zoomerang.com. Being fair, there is one key advantage to zoomerang which immediately put me in a good mood. On surveymonkey, for a free account, you are limited to ten questions. On Zoomerang, you can ask 30 questions before you have to pay. This meant we didn’t have to redo, or concatenate our questions, and made me smile inside
Pictured: an inside smile
Problems with Zoomerang.com
This goodwill was shortlived, when I tried to use the site to implement my questionnaire. Heres why:
- The workflow isn’t clear when making a survey, and so I entirely missed the step where you add your questions. Clicking through the process actually caused me publish a blank questionnaire. Which wouldn’t be a problem, except…
- …You can’t edit an existing survey. Once its published, you cannot add/remove/change questions. Surveymonkey allows this. So I was stuck with my blank survey, and had to start again from scratch.
- Having figured out how to add questions, I got started, and selected “insert question”. It added a header, which then had to be changed to type question. I guessed that was because it was my first item, but no, it always defaults to inserting a header (odd, since you’d only need 1 per page, whereas you’d need multiple questions).
- So I finally got to add a question, and this is when the terribleness of the design struck me. I selected a question where a radio button would select from a number of answers, and typed in my list of 15 or so alternative answers into a rich text field. I hit submit, and … got an error, saying “answers can only be 1000 characters, including HTML”, and even worse…
- …It deleted the data I had entered in that field. All 15 answers. This is a critical failure of any system, since the data a user inputs should be considered sacred.
- There was no counter telling me how many characters I had entered, so I had to retry a few times. Eventually I realised that I could only enter 5 potential one word answers before it’d error that I was over 1000 characters. That had to be a mistake? I investigated further…
- …Looking at the HTML, it turned out that the rich text editor was writing rubbish html. At the start of each answer, it’d add needless style tags, often multiple times. Heres an example of the HTML it generated for my one word answer “complicated”
<p><span style=”font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-size: small;”><span style=”font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-size: small;”><span style=”font-family: Arial; color: #000000; font-size: small;”>Complicated</span></span></span></p> - …no wonder it was hitting the character limit after 4 or 5 words. I had to manually enter the html for all the possible answers, just so I could get round this.
- My last fault with zoomerang.com is just a suspicion. I look after my email accounts, and so have never received spam in my current primary address. After signing up for zoomerang last week, I received my first random spam email. Might just be a coincidence, but I didn’t sign up for anything else that week!
I had to call this guy to fix my survey
How to fix zoomerang.com
To improve their user experience, they should look at red-routing the goals the user needs to achieve:
- Make the progression through survey design clearer, highlighting which step questions are added in
- Also make it clear how far through the design process you are, and what steps remain
- Restrict what the user can do, so they cannot post a blank questionnaire. Its obvious if they are about to do this that they’ve made a mistake, tell them!
- Don’t make question types default to “header”. Surely users will only use this type once at most, whereas they’re going to have more than one question on the questionnaire. Make it default to that!
- Fix the WYSIWYG code generator, so that the user doesn’t have to manually code the answers in HTML. A lot of user’s would get stuck at this point!
- Don’t send me spam!
And what can you do, until these fixes are made? Use surveymonkey.com. Or, if you’ve found anything better, leave a comment and let me know!
The Uncanny Valley of Wireframes
The uncanny valley is a theory describing how, as games and robotics produce more accurate representations of humanity, people’s reactions towards them are increasingly negative. This is also true with the production of wireframes, and in user experience testing and is something user centred designers need to be aware of.
The uncanny valley was originally discovered in the field of robotics, but also frequently applies to video games. It describes a phenomenon with replications of humans, whether they are life-like androids or avatars on a computer game. Initially, as the reproduction of a human and its movement becomes more lifelike we react more positively towards the object, so we’d like Lara Croft more than Leisure Suit Larry. However a point is reached, when the reproduction becomes too life-like, and the emotional response drops rapidly, meaning we feel repulsed from the object. Consider Keanu Reeves’ acting. Almost human, but utterly repulsive!
The term ‘uncanny valley’ therefore comes from plotting a graph showing our emotional response against how lifelike the reproduction is, with a sharp ‘valley’ appearing in the emotional response between a very lifelike reproduction, and the real thing.
Got that?
A similar phenomena can be seen in the production of wireframes, and hence is of critical importance to UX designers. After spending hours producing beautiful wireframes in Omnigraffle, I presented them to a client, to show how their ‘event registration’ pages would function. They came back and said “yeah it looks good, but we need to change that label text… and we need to make the dropdown arrow bolder… and can we make the heading font bigger”. This was their first view of the wireframes, to approve whether they functioned correctly, and it’s obvious what I’d done wrong.
The time and effort I’d put into making the wireframes look good, and look like a real website weren’t just wasted, they were actually hindering the process – since the mock up looked like a real webpage, the client was focusing on the small presentational details, and not the functionality itself. They expected it to look and function like the final product. If instead, I’d done a rough sketch on paper to demonstrate how the registration process should work, the client would have focused on the functionality instead. A design that looks to be in the early stages will encourage more far-reaching comments and criticism, rather than ‘fine-tuning’.
This is most important when you’re trying to focus the user experience when performing tests, especially with people not overly familiar with your site or game. Performing tests to ascertain the correct information architecture, or user’s experiences with a website’s functionality would be useless if all your comments ended up being about the site’s colour scheme. To make it clear that the designs are rough, and the presentation is not the focus, it is important not to create overly realistic designs.
Similarly care should be taken to pick an appropriate prototyping method. Paper isn’t used just because it’s quick and easy, but it also helps manage the client’s expectations. If you spent the time making the webpage on a computer, they’d be expecting it to work like a real product. On paper, this isn’t the case. Like the uncanny valley, getting too close to the real thing will be detrimental to the client’s perception of your work.
And you wouldn't want your work to look like this...
So, what steps do we need to take to ensure that the client, or user will focus on the right areas of your wireframes and designs?
- When performing initial designs, use lo-fi methods, like paper, post-stick notes, and whiteboards, where possible
- If using design software, like Pidoco or Omnigraffle, use a ‘sketches’ template, which renders your design in a pseudo-drawn method.
- Avoid drawing/designing unnecessary parts of the design – focus only on the essential
- Use filler text, and don’t work on the copy until later.
- Make it clear to the user/client that these are rough, disposable prototypes.
So, whether you’re working with a client to design their site, or conducting user testing, take care not to over-present the design, in order to manage expectations, and prevent unnecessary complaints!
