5 - Trevor Corradin

It is fairly obvious that YouTube has a very cluttered homepage. Most of the features provided to users on the homepage are not used, and many even find them annoying. If we used the "Aim Low" method, we could focus on the major parts of the site that are actually used, such as the search feature and related videos feature, instead of focusing on "recommended" videos and "best of" categories. The search and related videos features are used with a much higher frequency than other features of the site, so they should have more time focused on them so that the site will work better with all users, not just some. This also applies to my redesign of the YouTube site in project 3. I focused on a way to better incorporate the "best of" features, whereas the "Aim Low" method would suggest eliminating it all together because it is not a popular feature to most users.

4- Emily Gries

In a lot of cases regarding technology, it is not about the user being right or wrong. It is all about the way their mind works and how easy the application or technology is. Due to the fact that a lot of users have all sorts of different issues with applications and technology, it is important to see the trends of the big usability issues that a majority of people have. This does not make the user or the creator right or wrong, it just means they have looked at different aspects and decided to create it based on a certain way. I think that Hoekman’s larger focus with the idea of  “user-centered” is to decrease this gap of user and developers. An idea that goes off of this is personas. Sometimes the personas can get specific to one type of user, therefore catering to those types of users and not the rest, who may have different issues with using the technology. The more input and personas used to design, the more people will be satisfied and able to understand the application. This is what “user-centered” is all about; attempting to catering to as many usability flaws as possible in order to create the most sufficient product.

                An aspect of situation-centered design that project two was focused on is self-design. In project two, we focused on the usability of gym equipment. What we could have done, and partly did do, is focus on different types of users and what would be easier for other people. That is why we tested other people besides ourselves; because we know what types of issues that we have with using those machines and not what other types of people use. When making something for one’s self, It’s easy to design things solely for them and not taking into consideration what usability issues other types of people would have. We probably should have tested more people (of all types) and came up with different personas.

5-Ying Yu Hong

In the old YouTube design, users have to think of and type in keywords to look for a video, which is inconvenient and they may not get the result they want if they didn't enter an accurate description. While in my new design, after users type in words, YouTube will give some advanced suggestions in pictures. Users only need to browse the pictures and click on the categories to narrow down the search results. It is a useful technique to improves the user experience of searching videos and helps users choose a video easier and can meet their needs and wants effectively as well.

In the Third law of usability, Kurg suggested a good design should "Get rid of half the words in each page, then get rid of half of what's left." This is important to keep a design layout clean and get rid of the unnecessary features for simplicity. Therefore, I think I should keep the front page simple and reduce the words because pictures are explicit enough.

5 - Baiyan Zhang

Before I read the the "Drop Nice-to-Have Features" part in book, I thought the design should be perfectly and have enough features for users. However, after I readd book, I know that some designs are useless and repeated.

In the project 3 design, we added the link to the official website of the TV show. I think I could have dropped this feature. According to the unnecessary test, I found if the users could watch what they want at YouTube, they have no need to go to other websites. If the users want to know the information about the TV show, they might go to google them or go to their official website directly. That feature would distract user's attention and it is not necessary. Therefore, I think this feature might be a good choice to be dropped.

5- Grant Pendrey

YouTube has so much clutter on the front page. There are so many features on the page that most of the features should be hidden or removed. Using the Aim Low method, it is almost impossible to argue to keep all the features on the front page, specifically the "recommended" videos feature. First of all, there are a large group of followers that dislike the feature, as there are many articles, blogs and post complaining about the feature. It is also rarely used because most users visit the front page and immediately search because they already had a video in mind they wanted to see.

This feature could be useful for some users but it is not essential for the functionality of the website. As well this feature creates a lot of clutter on the front page only further explaining a redesign is needed.

5 - Jon Burris

After looking at our teams design, I decided to take "The Unnecessary Test" approach to our final design. Our redesign to YouTube was the side panel when you are signed in.

Here's our sketch:

Using "The Unnecessary Test" technique step by step has allowed me to identify a feature that was not needed in our redesign. As you can see, when the "My Popular" is clicked on there is a drop-down menu. When "My Popular" is prompted, the user is able to see all of their selected tabs on this homepage also which makes the drop-down menu irrelevant. ThereforeI have come to realize that this feature is a "nice to have" feature and is not needed for the overall function of YouTube's side panel. 

Unrelated... again - Jake Van Schouwen

Hey everyone,

I had to leave quickly today after class so missed out on the meet & greet (darn).  I'm sure there will be another on Wednesday but if you want to work together on project 4, just email me!

jvanscho@indiana.edu

Thanks
Jake

5- Adam Johnson

A key sentence that I found very useful when it comes to designing the obvious was "..Take whatever you think your product should be and cut it in half.." (Getting Real). After reading this chapter, I am still pleased with our team's Project 3.  Of course, no design is perfect and there is a feature I would now delete.  Our design (mobile iOS devices only) was to enable YouTube videos/songs to continue playing when the application is closed, and at the same time can be accessed through the iOS controls when you swipe up, including another swipe to the right to switch from iTunes player and the YouTube controls we added. I did The 60-Second Deadline to our design.  I found that I could not add in the swiping to the right from iTunes music to our YouTube controls in 60 seconds.  This tells me that it is a "nice to have" feature and not an "essential" one.  I also found that i did not aim low enough, since it would be just as quick as to open the YouTube application and restarting/replaying songs or videos than it would be to swipe up then swipe right like our design.

In conclusion, our design did cove the necessary features our design needed, but had another feature that was unnecessary.  I found that these techniques relates to the "whole game" because we were too focused on all the rules that would almost never come into play, instead of learning or designing the basics and essentials.

5 - Kristi Starling

For project 3, my partner and I made a very simple change to YouTube, with the goal being an obvious design without bells and whistles.  Any design, however, always has room for improvement.  I chose to use the Unnecessary Test to evaluate what features would be best removed from our design.

The Unnecessary Test involves asking three questions regarding each feature of the design:  Is there more than one way to complete the task this feature supports?  Does this feature contribute directly to the completion of the task? Is the task this feature supports vital to the activity this application supports?  A "no" to any of these questions means a feature could be unnecessary.

Here's a look at our design:

The idea is that the user can save videos to "My Videos" then go to the page shown above to view them and organize them into playlists.  Three different tabs appear at the top to view all videos, view recently added videos, and view and manage playlists.  In light of the Unnecessary Test, however, I realized that perhaps the "Recently Added" tab is a feature we don't really need.  The idea was that videos would appear in the "All Videos" tab in reverse order that they were added (i.e. with the most recently added appearing first), so there is no real reason to also have a "Recently Added" tab.  Accessing recently added videos can be accomplished just as easily through the "All Videos" tab, and thus the "Recently Added" tab fails the first question of the Unnecessary Test.

5 - Hayden Mills

The technique that I would use from the chapter five reading is the "60-Second Deadline". The "60-Second Deadline" technique is where you write down all the features of your design and then cross-out as many unnecessary features as you can in 60 seconds. This technique forces you to quickly determine what your essential and non-essential features are for your design. By applying this technique the goal is to slim down and simplify your design. Hopefully when finished you have only the sole essential features of your design left in which you can concentrate on to make the best design possible.

Thinking about the redesign me and my partner did for the third project I can think of one necessary feature that we could do without. We chose to redesign the comment section of YouTube and make it possible for users to comment anonymously on YouTube videos. On one of our two redesigns we added a feature that would allow users to private message other users that had commented on the same video. This feature was a nice add-on but it was not entirely accomplishing the main goal of our original plans for the comment section redesign. In this instance the private message function was unnecessary and just a "bells and whistles" kind of feature. The private message feature would be the feature that we would remove in hopes of simplifying our design and better concentrating on our main goal for our YouTube comment section redesign.

Above image of the YouTube comment section redesign. To the left of the comment section you can see the "Private Message" button I talked about in my post.

5 - Nicholas Fields

One of the techniques described in this section for dropping 'nice-to-have' features is called, "The Unnecessary Test."  The Unnecessary Test involves examining a feature that you believe is important to have for the application.  The test involves asking a string of three questions.  First, is there more than one way to complete the task this feature supports?  Second, does this feature contribute directly to the completion of the task?  Lastly, is the task this feature supports vital to the activity this application supports?  Answering no to any of these questions means that the feature you are examining may be unnecessary and you should consider dropping that feature. 

Using this test, I determined that I could have dropped the 'Profile' icon from the top taskbar in my application.  This icon appeared in the top taskbar on my 'Home' screen and 'Video Browser' screen.  The Unnecessary Test revealed that there is more than one way to complete the task that this feature supports since the 'Home' screen has a thumbnail icon of the 'Profile' page; therefore, there was no reason to have an icon in the top taskbar for the same thing too.  Also, this feature did not necessarily contribute directly to the completion of the task either.  Therefore, this feature would be a great candidate to be dropped. 

5 - Kate L'Heureux

During project three with my partner, we decided to focus on the location of YouTube's inbox on an internet browser. The inbox was originally hidden somewhere that took at least 4 clicks to reveal. Our redesign revolved around taking the inbox from its current location and placing it on the user's account drop down menu and the Google + notification tab that looks like a bell. 

However, after reading Hoekman's section in chapter four, "Drop Nice-to-Have Features" I would definitely consider dropping the second link to the inbox located on the notifications tab. By adding the second link, it provides unnecessary clutter on the notifications tab. Also after considering the location of these two links, it really doesn't make sense to put them both in the same area, as it only takes up more space. While having a second link in the notifications tab helping the users infer as to what the inbox actually holds, I think this could be deemed "nice-to-have" in the end. 

After performing the 60-second Deadline test, I came to the same conclusion about our redesign. 

5 - Jake Van Schouwen

To be honest, I have no idea what feature I would drop from my partner and my redesign. We had such a simple addition to YouTube that if any part of the redesign was missing, it would forfeit the redesign's wholesome feeling.

But if I had to remove something it would be the recommended videos side bar on the individuals page.  My reasoning is that the page is for videos that the user has explicitly "said" to YouTube that they enjoy.  Therefore, the recommended videos side bar might feel a bit intrusive. 

The technique used here would be to Aim Low.  By Aiming Low, we would put a focus on provided the user with a space for the users videos.  Putting a recommended videos side bar would be a feature that really just does not need to be there. 

Week 05 Blog Assignment

First, let me say that most of you responded with insight to Week 4's blog assignment. I appreciate that you took the assignment seriously! Well done!

For this week, we turn to Chapter 4: "Build Only What is Absolutely Necessary."

Starting with the section (p. 88), "Drop Nice-To-Have Features," various techniques are described to help you eliminate unnecessary features. It's difficult to "let go" of a feature that you've already designed, but smart designers do this frequently.

As you think about the revision to your project 3 design (YouTube), use one of the techniques described in the book and explain what feature(s) you would be willing to drop and why. (You don't need to do this for project 3, but use this prompt as a way to describe what you could have done.)

By the way, where do these techniques come into play in your "whole game of HCI Design" drawing? You don't need to answer this, but minimally think about it.

4 - Hayden Mills

I believe that the user is not always correct. In many situations the user could be completely off the mark and wrong about what your design needs or doesn’t need. The important idea to consider from the third chapter of the book is if the tests and feedback you are receiving from different users is critical to the main goal of your end design/product then you should be weary of changing or adding the features recommended by the users. For example, if you are creating a new application in the hopes of making it easier for people to send email, then that should be your main concern with design changes and additions. If the user says that they want you to add or remove something that drifts away from your main goal of the product then you should thank them for the feedback but still be concentrated on what you are trying to accomplish overall. Many of times companies get distracted by creating new features just for the simple fact of creating new features.  Instead they should be concentrating on how they can better enhance their main product and its design.

Hoekman advocates for a larger user centered focus when he warns that in some instances we give to much credit to the individual and the personality of that individual and we fail to realize the situation in which they are coming from overall. This situation-centric approach speaks volumes to the design process and how we should consider user feedback. Different users experience different problems with your design because people may have different reasons for using the product and come from different experience levels and backgrounds. All people are different and that is a good thing. The challenge designers have is to create designs and products in which the end design can help everyone even when they are different and come from different levels of experience. 

Without a doubt I believe shadowing more users would’ve allowed our team to better understand the problems with the elliptical interface and how we could better improve it. We based all our new design features off our one user test and our personal experiences which weren’t all that bad. It would still not hurt to have tested a few more people to get a better understanding of the real problems with the old design.

4 - Jon Burris

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.

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.     

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.