Flying for the first time in ages, I’d forgotten a bit just how bad this experience is.
Yes, it’s amazing tha I can get from my house to Kansas City in around 9-ish hours (20 minutes to the airport, 10 minutes from parking to the terminal, an hour before flight time, an hour and a half to Atlanta, three and a half hour layover, two hours to KC, 15 minutes to pick up the rental, and 30 minutes to the hotel=9.75 hours.).
But the experience is such a simulacrum of what is was. Too bad.
Listening to Gypsy Roots at Ashland Coffee & Tea, I’m struck by how a musical mashup works so well. The band does a great, seamless blend of Roma riffs and Parisian insouciance running headlong into the blues. It’s a new experience out of older origins.
Mr. Zimmerman sure had it right.
It seems that every time I turn around, I’m looking at my blog and its paucity of content. Such is the life of an internal employee.
Now, however, might just be the time to move on out there. The field of user experience is–controversies over just what it is notwithstanding–more mainstream than ever before. In 2002 I started Sokohl & Associates, but the dotCom crash back then erased any chance of strong success. So I worked on it part time, choosing to do stints with the Federal Reserve, DigitalNet/BAE, Keane, and then most recently PracticeWorks. A mix of innie and outie UX work in some form or another, these positions also helped me hone skills, thoughts, and crafts.
No doubt our current economy presents challenges…heck, challenges just to stay solvent. As companies reduce their forces, as it were, the work still remains, for the most part. So perhaps now is the time. Perhaps I need to change with the times.
it’s a weird feeling to be transitioning from one situation to another. More on that, but the effect on digital experiences seems to be one of delightful disjunct.
This morning, ABC ran a story on its Good Morning America show that illustrates the conflict between business and user goals. Apparently dairies are moving intosquarish milk cartons. In effect, to save money and efficiency, rectangular gallon containers are better for business…but not for users.
The awkward top-heavy nature of the container causes people to spill milk and have an unwieldy experience. The manufacturers say, “Oh, it’s easy: Just rest the bottom of the container on a surface and tilt the milk.” In addition, some stores are holding classes in how to pour milk.
Yes, that’s right: Classes in how to pour milk.
Yet another example of business and technology ganging up on the user.
I know it’s been out there for awhile, but Peter Merholz’ Experience is the Product continues to resonate.
I’ll probably return to this them on occasion, but I find a lot of inspiration to what we do in physical architecture.
I recently found out that a classmate from high school is a guru in the architecture world: Tim Culvahouse. On the front page he’s got a great quotation:
Architecture designs situations, not just buildings; and situations, as any psychologist knows, are the most powerful determinants of behavior: more powerful than personality, habit, education, character, genetic makeup, more powerful than anything.
Indeed. You could paraphrase this in our world as
Experience architecture designs situations, not just applications; and situations, as any psychologist knows, are the most powerful determinants of behavior: more powerful than personality, habit, education, character, genetic makeup, more powerful than anything.
Also, a neat page from his site talks about the physical and spatial (isn’t that the same?) nature of New Orleans. Nice to see focused yet small ruminations on a theme. We should do more in the UX world.
I’ve been asked to write an article for a technology magazine on Web 2.0 and usability. I see it more than just usability, of course (don’t all us UXers?).
Here’s where I’m going:
As businesses rush to follow Web 2.0 ephemera, what effect are applications having on users and their ability to get stuff done? I’d like to look at some of the promises and pitfalls of Web 2.0 from a user experience perspective.
Many innovations come through in Web 2.0 implementations. Users are presented with a wide variety of controllable, malleable, formable experiences. Lightweight engineering solutions break the stranglehold of ponderous approaches that have stifled innovation.
And yet…what is the impact of so many choices? Will the Web 2.0 generation’s epitaph be, “They died with their options open?” When is too much choice too much? In addition, a rush to add the coolest glows and shapes and transitions might win over marketing suits but lose users.
Let’s examine how Web 2.0 principles can help–or hinder–user satisfaction and success. I think we need to open a dialog on enhancing innovation through a grounded understanding of users and their needs.
My friend Lyndsay posted a nice little case study of a firend doing some user research on the sly. Sad that people have to do this, but it is nice that UXers are sometimes stepping out of their comfort zones to take this on.
I first heard the term “guerilla ethnography” from Jess McMullin of nForm. He’s got a nice blog post talking about riding the bus to observe users. One of the things i’ve been pushing lately is that UX folks have to start being more creative about finding users to observe, interview, overhear, and watch.
My session at DocTrain West is over.
There’s always a sense of relief when I finish a session, even one as well-attended as this one. In addition, it’s flattering to be asked to sit for a podcastable interview and be blogged about.
Though I’m definitely showing the Keane flag, it’s also gratifying professionally to create positions and then test them in the marketplace.