The individual user of a product is never correct, as a product can satisfy every single need of every single user. But a pool of the products users can be correct, as they may be the large sum of the product's users and they may have a need that developers did not take into consideration. Developers should take into account many of the same requests of the many users. I believe there is a larger "user-centered" to look at here. This is where you decide what your product is going to be made for and how it will be used.
According to the situation-centric approach, Hoekman suggests that we develop and design towards situations that the product will be used in, rather than the users that will use it. This approach will work will only if you know the market it will be widely used in and the market's culture. For Project #2 I would have used a more user-centric approach to our work. I would have created a couple personas to see how our design of the machine could be improved.
Monday, February 10, 2014
4 - Nicholas Barker
I would say based off the context we have read, that the user is indeed not always right. I think it is important to take data we can receive from user(s), but to say that the thoughts of one or even many users is always right is just not correct. They could even want or desire features that in reality would not improve the overall design, they just think it could.
As far as Situation-centric approach, I think the best method I should of taken in project 2 would have been to observe multiple users and get feedback from this. I would then get a better idea for how to better improve my design.
4- Adam Johnson
Chapter 3 does seem like it is going against what we have discussed, which is that the user is always right. However, Hoekman suggests to create a persona, and stick to at least one (and not too many) persona that must be pleased. This means that this user is indeed always right. Therefore, this persona whose demands must be met trumps say the what a completely opposite person, or persona, would want (making them not right). Basically, a design should definitely be user-centered, but mainly designed for the ideal persona.
I think a critical point to take from the third chapter is the idea that there must be an immediate benefit to switching to your design. Statistics have shown that most users tend to stick with the first application or software they begin using regularly. This means all the extra features packed in are somewhat irrelevant, or at least when it comes to being successful. This is also primarily true because most users don't become experts, and only 'intermediate' users who would never use advanced features to begin with. Thus, the main goal is to efficiently and effectively accomplish the overall goal of the design, and make it useful for the user from the beginning.
A situation-centric approach to research is vital in designing the obvious. It is a good middle ground between activity-based (too narrow) and user-centered (too broad) research. It means more effort should be put in examining the situation the user is in, and not the user or activity itself. Another way of putting is how Hoekman notes that there can be 5 completely different people in the exact same situation. In our Project 2, I too should have done done more situational-centric research. My teammate and I focused on the activity and the user (which was us and one other person) and not on the situation at hand at all. Therefore, we should have examined the situation and not focused on how myself or Billy performed the sole task of exercising.
4 - Baiyan Zhang
In my opinion, if designers want to make a good design, they need to understand what the users want and needs, that is the user-centered design. However, users are not always correct. Different users must have different needs and views. There is no design is perfect and can satisfied all the users. So, some of the users would want designers to add or change some features that others like them. Therefore, users are not always right.
I do not think designers should always provide new features because one or more users ask for them. Firstly, those users who ask for those features can not represent all the users. Some other users may not want the current design add those features. Also, I think if a design always add the features what users want, it will go to another direction and may lose its initial purpose which the designers want. In addition, as what Hoekman mentioned, different types of users would use an application. That means they would view the application in different ways and may have different needs about it. If add all the things they want, the application would miss its direction. Then we back to the first part and we can know that there are no designs can satisfied all the people. Therefore, I think designers should add the features depends on situations but not always add them because some users want.
I think the situation-centric design is what Hoekman advocates. The purpose of those designs are help the users to do things better and solve the problems. This is because when users using the application, they might meet different kinds of problems or need different features, what situation-centered design is is to lead users get what they want and solve their different problems by the design.
So, I think in Project 2, the situation-centric approach to research might be use questionniars to gather information from different types of users like beginners or seniors, and observe what they do in current way. Then interview some people and find the direction the new design might go. This would let us know what features users currently like and what they dislike, then we can keep the strength and improve the weakness.
I do not think designers should always provide new features because one or more users ask for them. Firstly, those users who ask for those features can not represent all the users. Some other users may not want the current design add those features. Also, I think if a design always add the features what users want, it will go to another direction and may lose its initial purpose which the designers want. In addition, as what Hoekman mentioned, different types of users would use an application. That means they would view the application in different ways and may have different needs about it. If add all the things they want, the application would miss its direction. Then we back to the first part and we can know that there are no designs can satisfied all the people. Therefore, I think designers should add the features depends on situations but not always add them because some users want.
I think the situation-centric design is what Hoekman advocates. The purpose of those designs are help the users to do things better and solve the problems. This is because when users using the application, they might meet different kinds of problems or need different features, what situation-centered design is is to lead users get what they want and solve their different problems by the design.
So, I think in Project 2, the situation-centric approach to research might be use questionniars to gather information from different types of users like beginners or seniors, and observe what they do in current way. Then interview some people and find the direction the new design might go. This would let us know what features users currently like and what they dislike, then we can keep the strength and improve the weakness.
4 - Trevor Corradin
Regardless of what they may believe, the user will not always be correct. They may make requests for features that only result in more problems, or the designer may start listening to all the users with complaints and suggestions. If they listen to all of those suggestions, it is very likely that the product under discussion will become crowded and difficult to use. As Hoekman explains, when we look at the user we give too much credit to the individual and his/her personality, and not enough focus on the situation they're in. Designers need to focus on the "current and very transient circumstances" instead of individual details. In other words, he explains that design should use a situation-centered approach as well. We as designers hope to fix problems, not people.
I think that shadowing would be the best method to use when generating data for project 2. By shadowing multiple users, we would be able to obtain a great view of which problems were common, and which were individual. This would let us include features that would help the most people, and eliminate features that were actually a waste.
I think that shadowing would be the best method to use when generating data for project 2. By shadowing multiple users, we would be able to obtain a great view of which problems were common, and which were individual. This would let us include features that would help the most people, and eliminate features that were actually a waste.
4 - Kate L'Heureux
Sometimes the user is not always correct. In fact, sometimes the user doesn't actually need what they say they need. A user may say they need certain features, but in reality those additional features could become a problem once they're added for multiple reasons. If every user need is taken into account the design could end up becoming too overcrowded; much like authors who take every readers "want" into account, a book can become simply a "people-pleaser" losing its ability to tell a good story and fulfill its purpose.According to Hoekman, when we look at the user we give too much credit to their individual personalities and not enough enough to the situation they're in. When it comes down to designing, it's not the personal details that matter but "their current and very transient circumstances". This is the larger "user-centered" focus Hoekman advocates in chapter three.
In regards to the situation-centric approach to research, I think shadowing multiple users would be the most helpful in generating data about how the machine we were researching is used. If we shadowed enough users we would be able to get a better idea of how users react in this situation.
4 - Donald MacLeod
The user is always correct and never correct. The user can only know his or her experience with a product so that the user is correct in his or her mind. However, the user may not be correct to the majority. What is more important than the user's solution is the rationale behind a user's solution. A designer should not get hung up on the feature wants of a few users or features in general but should keep an emphasis on the "larger user-centered focus." A product that is usable to the majority of users is the key that Hoekman is getting at. The difficulty is striking the balance between features and usability because at some point there has to be a trade off. A product designed everybody is designed for nobody, and identifying the key users and the key features to make the product usable for the majority of users is just part of the design process.
A situation-centric approach to research may embody appeasing those in opposition to a design, but in most situations I would suggest that appeasing the majority is the most important task. In the situation of a general gym machine, a user needs to be able to use the machine with little to no direction, usability should be emphasized over features. However, with a specialized gym and a specialized machine, a feature rich product might be more emphasized. While a product that is feature rich isn't necessarily unusable, there is a trade off that will occur to some extent. Situation research helps determine the extent of usability by studying the situations of individual users.
Shadowing in my mind is the gold standard of situational research because the lots of observations can be made on how a user actually uses a product. However, I am unsure on how much the results would have different by shadowing a user rather than asking to complete use cases.
A situation-centric approach to research may embody appeasing those in opposition to a design, but in most situations I would suggest that appeasing the majority is the most important task. In the situation of a general gym machine, a user needs to be able to use the machine with little to no direction, usability should be emphasized over features. However, with a specialized gym and a specialized machine, a feature rich product might be more emphasized. While a product that is feature rich isn't necessarily unusable, there is a trade off that will occur to some extent. Situation research helps determine the extent of usability by studying the situations of individual users.
Shadowing in my mind is the gold standard of situational research because the lots of observations can be made on how a user actually uses a product. However, I am unsure on how much the results would have different by shadowing a user rather than asking to complete use cases.
4- Situation-Centric Design Approach
The approach of situation-centric design makes a lot of sense to me. Other approaches such as creating personals or looking at different tasks can be helpful but do not always paint the whole picture of the problem at hand. Without fulling understanding the problem, that best solution is not always found. For example, when you look at user feedback and take into consideration the suggestions of the user this is extremely helpful for designers to identify a problem. Although, there suggestions should not be taken as a final solution. Once the problem is realized, I believe a more open minded approach should be taken to understanding why this user and other users are experiencing this problem. Once the "why" of the problem is understood, an solution can be created that is best for all users. Each user may be narrow minded towards there own problems and a designer can take all these suggestions in to create a solution that works for all users and hopefully is even more helpful than the users original suggestions.
I personally don't believe that paying attention to the user's needs and the situation-centric approach contradict each other but rather they compliment each other. Once a solution is created using the situational approach, the user's needs can than be compared to take a deeper look at how the solution may impact the user experience. This helps to identify a solution with an open minded approach and their measure its effectiveness with more narrow minded example cases. However, not all solutions are best fit for every user. This is what makes HCI a iterative process of design. It is best to focus on groups of users rather than the whole population to create solutions to fit your customer base and build specific tools that specific users love. This creates loyalty that can't be created with generalized solutions. Because of this, the user is not always right. If a user is outside of the target demographic you are designing for, there suggestions might not always be taken into account for the final design.
For project two, I believe a different approach could have been made used to identify with user situations. After observing one or two people using the machine, it would have been beneficial to ask more people to use the machine but give them more directed instructions about tasks we would have liked to see them complete. These more directed tasks would be tasks that the first users struggled with, allowing for a greater understanding of how people approached the problematic tasks and whether or not these problematic tasks were only for some users rather than all users. This would better identify with Hoekman's idea of observing situation-centric research as we would better look at actual situations the user experiences and have a greater understanding of what was needed to better direct these situations.
4 - Nicholas Fields
The user is NOT always correct. Hoekman even says that a product is often more successful when driven by an authoritative, take-charge designer who completely ignores its specific users. The few users or the 'loudest' user is not necessarily representative of the average population that uses a specific application or product. There will always be a few people that want certain features emphasized or included, but for the majority of people these features will just confuse them and clutter the interface of the design.
The designer should not always provide new features because one or more users ask for them. Hoekman says that most people only learn 20 percent of an applications capabilities or uses/features while the remaining 80 percent typically get ignored which just leads to a more cluttered and confusing application or product (57). Thus, new features should not be provided just because a user asks for them. (60)
I believe that the larger "user-centered" focus that Hoekman advocates is a situation-centered approach to design. It isn't a type of person who uses an application, its a person in a type of situation (48). The applications we design are solution to problems; problems are situational whereas people are not situational (49).
A situation-centric approach can be done in three ways: observation, immersion, and all of the above. One form of this research is called contextual inquiry which is an abbreviated version of ethnographic research, which comes in the form of short, observation-driven interview sessions (63). Contextual inquiry is similar to shadowing which is very useful for research purposes. Shadowing involves hovering around someone on the job who is using the application or product that you are designing/redesigning. It involves taking notes and asking questions throughout the job shadow. Immersion is the process of actually doing the job that your application is supposed to support. Other possibilities include: remote user research, surveys, and etc.
In project #2, I could have used the method of contextual-inquiry to gather research by conducting a few short, observation-driven interview sessions. This could have been done by watching a few people use the elliptical and asking them questions throughout their use of the machine.
The designer should not always provide new features because one or more users ask for them. Hoekman says that most people only learn 20 percent of an applications capabilities or uses/features while the remaining 80 percent typically get ignored which just leads to a more cluttered and confusing application or product (57). Thus, new features should not be provided just because a user asks for them. (60)
I believe that the larger "user-centered" focus that Hoekman advocates is a situation-centered approach to design. It isn't a type of person who uses an application, its a person in a type of situation (48). The applications we design are solution to problems; problems are situational whereas people are not situational (49).
A situation-centric approach can be done in three ways: observation, immersion, and all of the above. One form of this research is called contextual inquiry which is an abbreviated version of ethnographic research, which comes in the form of short, observation-driven interview sessions (63). Contextual inquiry is similar to shadowing which is very useful for research purposes. Shadowing involves hovering around someone on the job who is using the application or product that you are designing/redesigning. It involves taking notes and asking questions throughout the job shadow. Immersion is the process of actually doing the job that your application is supposed to support. Other possibilities include: remote user research, surveys, and etc.
In project #2, I could have used the method of contextual-inquiry to gather research by conducting a few short, observation-driven interview sessions. This could have been done by watching a few people use the elliptical and asking them questions throughout their use of the machine.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
4 - Yousef Saead
User-centered design is a widely popular approach to design that aims to help designers better understand the needs and wishes of users so that interactive systems can better help them meet their goals. To answer the question of whether or not the user is always right we must look at the application in use. It depends if the application's audience spans a wide array of user types. If we do have a narrow array of users then the user is always correct but if it is not then we are preventing ourselves from reaching our goals by alienating audiences not part of the persona pool because of the wide array of users.
I would assume what Hoekman meant with his situation centered design was that the design of a product could be enhanced or diminished depending on the situation the user is in when using the product. We definitely used a user-centered design in project 2. We focused on the average gym visitor as our persona. I wouldn't change anything from what we did.
I would assume what Hoekman meant with his situation centered design was that the design of a product could be enhanced or diminished depending on the situation the user is in when using the product. We definitely used a user-centered design in project 2. We focused on the average gym visitor as our persona. I wouldn't change anything from what we did.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
4 - Jake Van Schouwen
"You can't please everyone"
That saying echoed throughout my head while reading chapter 3. Hoekman puts emphasis on having knowledge of the situation when deciding whether or not a certain design needs to be redesigned. He states that a designer need not worry about the opinion of a small subgroup if the masses are getting along with the product just fine. Anybody could sit and find features of a design that are, in that individual's opinion, flawed.
To be honest, I wish that we had been told to read this chapter before starting project 2. I feel that we, as a class, were baited into picking a piece of exercise equipment, finding what we did not like, and brainstorming a generic redesign for the machine, when all that really matters is if the masses are able to efficiently use the machine, which they can. Truth be told, this would have made project 2 A LOT more difficult so I'm thankful for that, but at the end of the day, Hoekman makes what my partner and I thought to be good and thoughtful ideas about the machine look irrelevant and uptight.
What Hoekman means by having a situation-centric approach is a lot what I have been saying; redesigning a certain product needs to have a lot more of a cause than just pleasing the few naysayers. All that matters is if the majority can smoothly operate the product, whatever it may be.
As for the methods, I would have to say that Shadowing seems like most viable of the listed methods. Shadowing is also the closest to what my partner and I did for the project. Retrospectively speaking, I would have shadowed more than one subject just to increase the depth of data received.
That saying echoed throughout my head while reading chapter 3. Hoekman puts emphasis on having knowledge of the situation when deciding whether or not a certain design needs to be redesigned. He states that a designer need not worry about the opinion of a small subgroup if the masses are getting along with the product just fine. Anybody could sit and find features of a design that are, in that individual's opinion, flawed.
To be honest, I wish that we had been told to read this chapter before starting project 2. I feel that we, as a class, were baited into picking a piece of exercise equipment, finding what we did not like, and brainstorming a generic redesign for the machine, when all that really matters is if the masses are able to efficiently use the machine, which they can. Truth be told, this would have made project 2 A LOT more difficult so I'm thankful for that, but at the end of the day, Hoekman makes what my partner and I thought to be good and thoughtful ideas about the machine look irrelevant and uptight.
What Hoekman means by having a situation-centric approach is a lot what I have been saying; redesigning a certain product needs to have a lot more of a cause than just pleasing the few naysayers. All that matters is if the majority can smoothly operate the product, whatever it may be.
As for the methods, I would have to say that Shadowing seems like most viable of the listed methods. Shadowing is also the closest to what my partner and I did for the project. Retrospectively speaking, I would have shadowed more than one subject just to increase the depth of data received.
Week 04 Blog Assignment
Chapter 3 of Designing the Obvious may appear to be contradicting what we've been saying about users and paying attention to user needs. Is the user always correct? Should the designer always provide new features because one or more users ask for them? Is there a larger "user-centered" focus that Hoekman advocates? Address these questions in your own words. There are many good ways to address these questions.
Then think about Project #2. In this context, what does Hoekman mean by a situation-centric approach to research? What method could you have used for your project? Describe what you might have done.
Monday, February 3, 2014
3 - Hayden Mills
https://www.bible.com/
YouVersion is a website and mobile application that provides the Bible in different versions and languages. They also provide Bible reading plans, Bible dictionaries, and other miscellaneous features relating to the Bible and Christianity.
I believe the "why" for the YouVersion design team and company is simple. Their mission is to provide the Bible, in a free, simple, and accessible way for people to be able to read and use in their daily lives. I believe specifically that the design team designed and developed the Bible reading application page to be simple and easy to use for users. I believe the design team put great thought into the "why" instead of the "what" when designing the Bible reading page in the app because it is so important to the app and goal as a whole. Their motivation had to of been the users and what they would be able to do with the application. In order to accomplish this I believe the designers strategically thought out the placement of each icon and function on this Bible reading page. Users can easily navigate to different sections of the Bible by simply tapping the drop down menu or searching for the text in the search bar. Users with bad eyesight can easily enlarge the text with the tap of a finger. Users can also listen to Bible audio and bookmark text of their choice. The design of the app gives users the power to use the app to the highest capacity with also not having to many bells and whistles which distract the user from the primary goal. The simplistic design of this page perfectly demonstrates the "why" for the design team at YouVersion.
3 - Trevor Corradin
I chose to use the Jimmy Johns website and it's order feature found at jimmyjohns.com. It allows users to enter multiple payment methods, and a there is a variety of customization for orders easily found in a step by step fashion. The site is easy to use, and guides the person ordering through the entire process.
I believe that the designers of the Jimmy Johns website kept the ideas in mind of Jimmy Johns being "freaky fast". This company emphasizes the need for speed, accuracy, and convenience in their ordering and delivery. By giving users this easy to use website and ordering system, they have made it very easy for customers to set up an order, and repeat the order at a later time if desired. By keeping all these aspects on their website, they have given their users something that is both easy to use/understand, and quick to use and complete.
3-Ying Yu Hong
If I were a part of the Hulu.com design team, I would say
the primary incentive of why we are making the website is to create a community
where people can watch shows together and communicate with each other. In order
to let audience have better watching experience, we design our product in a
user-friendly way. We provide different types of shows for users to choose
from. Besides that, we personalized users' preferences according to their watch
history. There are updates of latest episode with brief summary, and when there
is a new episode aired, we will remind audience to watch. By putting audience
experience in the first place, Hulu has successfully attracts many loyal
customers.
3-Adam Johnson
To reiterate, I chose Amazon as my website of choice. More specifically, I chose the drop-down menu for Amazon's "Your Account" feature, where members can easily manage their entire account all in one convenient location at the top of the page. If one isn't a member, the clever placement and big lettering sticks out like a sore thumb making it easy to find and register. Although simple, I believe this whole drop-down (e.g. location, content of what's in the menu, etc) is designed beautifully.
I would have been proud to be part of the design team that designed this feature of Amazon. It agrees with Sinek's whole "Golden Circle" of "Why, What, and How". This is where Amazon excels, especially in "Why" as in their purpose is to be the leader of selling goods (among many other things) online. It also is clear that they have had this vision for a long time, as to my knowledge this "Your Account" feature has changed very little over the years, showing their vision from the start. I'm sure some extra options have been added to the drop-down, but the idea of managing your account easily and quickly and ultimately providing a positive online shopping experience has been present from the beginning.
3 - Jon Burris
 |
| www.pandora.com |
The design of Pandoras tool bar is simple and gives the users all the tools they need to navigate the website right there without scrolling up and down the page. It allows their users to come back to Pandora and glance at Pandora after surfing the web. This ables the user to quickly pause, play, up, and down a song and see what song is playing instantly.
The colors of Pandora's site and tool bar are very interesting to me. It uses a darker dull blue that fades out and the rest of the page uses many shades of a darker blue When I visit Pandora, the colors enhance my mood to want to listen to music. It gives me that vibe of relaxation and the initiative to listen to music.
The overall purpose of Pandora's toolbar was to give users the simplicity of managing their music without the overhaul (ex: iTunes). Users don't have the hassle of downloading music, searching through libraries, and creating playlists. Pandora gives their users the full experience of a variety of music and playlists directly in their tool bar that without inconveniences.
3-Donald MacLeod
To recap, I chose the eBay header that is accessible throughout the site and that allows navigation to the website's core functions.
The eBay web development team most likely has two goals in mind for this header: to make it easy to buy and to make it easy to sell. eBay makes most of its money on listing fees and commissions on all items sold. While eBay's website can be used for other purposes, buying and selling are the most important to eBay because eBay makes money on users' buying and selling. This reasoning is most likely why almost the entire header is dedicated to buying and selling goods. However, there are ancillary services to buying and selling such as account management and customer service. For this reason, access to these are also made easily accessible in the header. eBay did not have job listings, privacy polices, or corporate data as a primary focus because these are unimportant to the casual and even frequent eBayer because they are not necessities for buying and selling. Hence why they are at the bottom on the page. In all the, the eBay header was designed with one idea in mind, making money off of buyers and sellers.
3 - Baiyan Zhang
I chose grubhub website which is an online food order website for my second blog posting. (http://www.grubhub.com)
I think the design team's motivation for creating the website like this is to create a more convenient, fast and diversification world of food. They believe the delicious food can be found and shared via website and they want to change users eating habits into a simple but still high quality way. So they have some suggestions about the best places they think, which are also the places some other users agree. In addition, I think the disign team considered the difference between users, so they provide many options for those people who want to try different kinds of food. The choices include many different restaurants and the design teams grouped them and let those users immediately can know what they are interested and they can try different restaurants. Also they provide options for those people who hard to make decisions.They use stars and suggestions method to share what are delicious.
After I saw that TED speech, I think why this website can become well-known is because the purpose they want to build this website is to share foods and change users habits into a simple but still high quality way. For this purpose, they considered more for users which make some choices and features to let users familiar to them. That might be the reason why it can success and stands out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)