Archive for the ‘HCI’ Category



19
Nov

Amazon understands its customers

Twice this week, I’ve had to discuss the success of Amazon. In my opinion, it’s not due to their content, but rather their successful application of usability and user centred design. Today I’ll be looking at how Amazon has applied user experience principles to build upon their early success and stay competitive in the marketplace.
Click to continue…

11
Nov

Improving the user experience of driving

This weekend I drove a 500 mile round trip, which gave me a lot of time to think. I thought about how driving is very similar to a game, requiring practise, skill, and with clearly defined goals. I guess that’s why driving was always such a popular young-adult activity before consoles.

I also thought about how we can apply some of the things we’ve learnt about user experience to improve driving, both for the driver, and for society as a whole.

Click to continue…

15
Sep

UXBrighton 2010 Conference Review

This week I attended the UXBrighton conference, and was very impressed by the size and experience demonstrated by the Brighton UX community. The conference was an extension of the monthly UXBrighton meetings, who moved for the first time to a bigger venue – necessitated by the prestige of their special guest Rory Sutherland, as documented by James Page. The conference can be called an undeniable success for the local community, with 250 people in attendance, and a full day of interesting and enlightening talks.

Nuremburg

attendance was looking good

Click to continue…

3
Aug

Usability Issues in Sharepoint

Taking a short break from our normal topics of usability and user experience within games, this week i’ll be focusing on Intranets built with Microsoft Sharepoint.

This post is in response to Jakob Nielsen’s update on Sharepoint, entitled ‘Does Sharepoint Destroy Intranet Design?’. For the last year I’ve been working closely with Sharepoint, and want to wade in to this discussion.

Are intranets all the same?

Nielsen’s update argues for Sharepoint as an effective base for an intranet. Counter to the argument that the standard Sharepoint toolset doesn’t allow much flexibility when designing, he presents four different intranets, all based on Sharepoint, as evidence.

The evidence Nielsen supplies for this conclusion, that Sharepoint still allows intranet design, seems… dubious. For example, he lists the different top navigation categories as evidence that the sites design is different. I would hesitate to define the designing of an intranet to be entirely about information architecture (the categories chosen for top level navigation), and would suggest that the ability to design a flexible intranet goes much deeper than this.

Big Hole

About this much deeper...

Sharepoint isn’t perfect

Having worked closely with Sharepoint for the last year, it’s obvious that the usability problems within Sharepoint are more important than its ability to define navigation categories.

For example, this is how you’d upload an image from your hard drive onto the page you are editing.

  1. Click ‘edit page’. Wait for new page to load.
  2. Click in the area, and click on image button.
  3. New window comes up, click on ‘browse’.
  4. New window comes up, Only shows 8 images at a time – verify the image you want isn’t already uploaded (through lots of slow page refreshes).
  5. Decide to upload, click ‘upload’ (note that the directory you have been browsing is not the directory that it’ll upload too – instead it always uploads to the same directory. And has no tools to move the image to a new location, besides opening the directory in windows explorer to do it)
  6. New window comes up, click browse, find the file, click upload.
  7. Find the image in the thumbnail viewer (remember, only 8 images at a time) –
  8. Click ok on every box that’s opened
  9. Click on ‘check in’ to view page.
unnecessary

A tad unnecessary?

Similarly, small usability ‘mistakes’ seem to exist throughout Sharepoint.  For example, Sharepoint keeps old versions of the file or page you’re working on, in case you need to restore it. (note this doesn’t work on ‘web-parts’ – areas of the page which contain JavaScript or custom html). To remove these, which is a common requirement due to file size restrictions, you must:

  1. Right click on a file, select ‘version history’.
  2. Right click on an invidual version
  3. Select  ‘delete version’
  4. Accept confirmation box
  5. Refresh the page
  6. Go to 2

I often encounter files with hundreds of versions. This process takes hours.

So the solution to this is obvious and widely seen elsewhere (even in other areas of Sharepoint!). A row of tick boxes down the side of the list of versions, with ‘select all/none’ buttons. Then a ‘delete selected’ button. This would save hours on intranet maintenance, and seems like a massive oversight.

Conclusion

Although Nielsen’s argument that Sharepoint doesn’t prevent intranet customisation is legitimate, I feel Sharepoint has more pertinent usability issues that prevent it from being the perfect CMS to build an intranet upon.

Nielsen over-represents the amount of customisation possible – although you can change the navigation, and the pictures/layout, Microsoft impose definitive restrictions upon what can and cannot be done, often prevent usability issues from being fixed.

Instead, I suggest an open source CMS like Drupal would provide a better base for an intranet. By giving the administrator full control over the CMS’s inner workings, Drupal not only allows a wider range of customisation, and design to take place, but it also benefits from a plethora of user created modules which add almost any pre-generated functionality that can be imagined. As such, it not only allows the limited customisation that Sharepoint can, but gives the user the chance to fix usability problems through customisation, and extend the functionality in ways limited only by imagination.

29
Jun

Applying Games UX lessons makes dull tasks fun!

I recently watched Sebastian Deterding’s presentation ‘Just Add Points?’. It covers applying lessons learnt from games to software, to make software more enjoyable to use. The talk then goes on to cover where this model traditionally falls down, before rebuilding a model with new rules.  The presentation was engaging, very well designed and a good extension of the principles within Ralph Koster’s book, applying its lessons to the real world, and therefore well worth a look.

The presentation first covers ways in which the UX lessons learnt from games have, or can, be applied to dull tasks to incentivise people to do them. Some examples of this can be found on Volkswagen’s thefuntheory.com website, such as turning a staircase into a piano to encourage people to take the stairs, or turning a bottle bank into a game to encourage people to recycle.

recycling

all the encouragement I need...

Deterding does provide some critical analysis of this model – what happens on day 2, for example? Is it still fun to recycle? I also question the justification provided by Volkswagen that the bottle bank performed better than a standard one. Although it did in the example, when the user was provided with a choice between two geographically-close bottle banks, this fails to be a conclusive proof of the fun bottle bank being more effective at encouraging recycling. (would the ‘dull’ one receive an equal amount of recycling to the fun one if there was no alternative – what about over a number of months?)

The typical theory of fun is that ‘adding points’ will magically make dull activities fun, because of It adds competition, re-playability, and a new ‘meta-game’ to the activity taking place. However, Deterding’s presentation challenges this, and says that ‘just adding points’ is a too simplistic understanding of the application of fun to menial tasks. Instead, games present an optimized version of many positive psychological features of real life, and through the recognition of this, real life can be optimised.

As I discussed in my review of Ralph Koster’s book, ‘fun’ is the act of learning and successfully applying, and adapting the knowledge learnt, and typically games present an adaption of this. Games optimise ‘fun’ because:

  • They allow the construction of clear, realistic goals, with measurable progress
  • The goals are presented in a manageable manner, with a clear ‘call to action’, indicating what is to be done, and when it has been achieved
  • The player’s current status is clear, and their progress towards the end goal is indicated
  • New tasks are built upon knowledge already gained
  • Social comparison can be made with your friends to compare progress

So the obvious way of making dull tasks fun would presumably be to integrate these principles from games? However this conflicts with software, and menial tasks, core goals of efficiency. As I’ve noted before, ‘press a button to win’ is effective, but not fun.

Unlike games, software (and menial tasks) doesn’t give designers full control over the environment – instead the user defines the goal (such as ‘write a letter to the TV Licensing people’). This makes direct application of the features from games difficult.

Hangman

We have taken re _ _ _ sses_ _ _ of your _ a _ s _ _ r

Instead, Deterding presents us with a list of ‘patterns, models and words for emotion and rule design’, that he has derived from games. Unfortunately, they are not as simple as ‘just add points’!.

I highly recommend watching Deterding’s presentation, it is an effective synopsis of a debate that is very much still in progress, and shows us why a simplified or direct application of Ralph Koster’s rules doesn’t work with non-games, despite what Volkswagen have been showing us. Instead, Deterding presents his own models, which are not as simple, or easy, and yet may turn out to be a more practical lesson for how we can apply knowledge from games to improve the user experience of mundane tasks.