Part I
Why Research Is Good and How It Fits into Product Development
CHAPTER 1 Typhoon: A Fable
Sometimes it takes a long time for something to be obvious: a shortcut in the neighborhood that youâve known all of your life, a connection between two friends, the fact that your parents arenât so bad. It can take a while for the unthinkable to seem clearly natural in retrospect.
So it is with Web sites and user research. For a long time in the short history of Web development, the concept of putting an unfinished product in front of customers was considered an unthinkable luxury or pointless redundancy. The concerns in Web design circles were about branding (âmake sure the logo has a blue arc!â) or positioning (âweâre the amazon.com of bathroom cleaning products!â) or being first to market. Investigating and analyzing what users needed was not part of the budget. If a Web site or a product was vaguely usable, then that meant it was useful (and that it would be popular and profitable and whatever other positive outcomes the developers wanted from it). Asking users was irrelevant and likely to damage the brilliance of the design.
Recent history has clearly proved that model wrong. Itâs not enough to be first to market with a blue circle arc and an online shopping cart. Now itâs necessary to have a product thatâs actually desired by people, that fulfills their needs, and that they can actually use. That means user research. User research is the process of understanding the impact of design on an audience. Surveys, focus groups, and other forms of user research conducted before the design phase can make the difference between a Web site (or any designed product) that is useful, usable, and successful, and one thatâs an unprofitable exercise in frustration for everyone involved.
Nowadays, it seems obvious that a product should be desired by its audience. But that wasnât always the case. Letâs step back to the Web world of the mid-1990s, when perfectly smart and reasonable people (including me) couldnât imagine designing a product that users wouldnât like. Hereâs what happens when you donât think about the user.
The Short History of Typhoon
In the heady days of 1996, PointCast was king. A service that ingeniously transformed the mundane screen saver into a unique advertising-driven news and stock service, it was the wunderkind on the block. It attracted tens of thousands of users and landed its creators on the covers of all the industry magazines. Information coming to people, rather than people having to ask for it, was a brand-new concept and quickly acquired a buzzword summarizing it. It was push technology, and it was the future. Soon, everybody was on the push bandwagon, building a push service.
Let me tell you a fable about one company that was on the bandwagon. Itâs based on a true story, but the details have been changed in the interest of storytelling (and to protect the innocent, of course). Letâs call the company Bengali. Bengali had several high-profile successes with online news and information services, and now was confident, ready, and eager to take on a new challenge. They wanted to create something entirely revolutionaryâto challenge everyoneâs assumptions about media and create the next television, radio, or printing press. They decided that their dreams of creating a new medium through the Internet had its greatest chance for success in push.
It was going to be called Typhoon, and it would put PointCast to shame. Bengali went into skunkworks mode, developing Typhoon completely in-house, using the most talented individuals and releasing it only when it was completely ready.
PointCast Killer development takes a lot of work. The developers worked on the project in secret for a year, speaking about it to no one outside the company (and few inside). Starting with âHow will the society of the future interact with its media?â the development team created a vision of the medium of the future. They questioned all of their assumptions about media. Each answer led to more questions, and each question required envisioning another facet of the future.
The software and the vision grew and mutated together. The final product was intricate, complex, and patched together in places, but after a year Bengali was ready to release it.
When it was ready to launch, it was shown to top company management. Although undeniably impressed with the magnitude of the achievement, the executives felt some apprehension. Some wondered who the audience was going to be. Others asked the team how people would use it. Although the team had answers for everything (over the year, they had developed a very thorough model of the program and how it was to be used), they admitted that they had to qualify most of their answers because the software had not been put in front of many end users. They were experienced developers, and they had done some in-house evaluation, so they figured thatâif not right onâtheir design was pretty close to what their users would want. But, to placate the executives and check where the rough spots were, the developers decided to do some user research before launching it.
A dozen people were picked and invited for one-on-one user tests. They came in, one at a time, over the course of several days. The plan was to have them sit down, give some initial thoughts about the product, and then let them try a couple of different tasks with it.
The tests were a disaster. This is a portion of a verbatim transcript from one session.
USABILITY TEST SESSION TRANSCRIPT
If this is just graphics that are supposed to look that way itâs kind of confusing because you think that maybe itâs supposed to do something ⌠I donât know.
All of these words down here are barely legible.
If this is supposed to say something that Iâm supposed to understand, I guess itâs very hard to figure what that stuff is.
None of these headlines are making any sense to me.
I donât know what to make of these.
I know if I click on them theyâll do something but âŚ
Itâs not inspiring me to click on any of them so far.
Also, thereâs no status bar so youâre not really sure when a page is finished being loaded.
I donât know if these numbers have anything to do with that or not ⌠I donât know.
I hope that thatâs a story that Iâm going to follow the link to.
This must be [downloading over] a 28.8 [modem] Iâm assuming.
It seems a little slow.
This doesnât seem like what I was looking for.
Iâm really curious about what these numbers are down here.
They may be nothing.
I just want to know what theyâre about.
OK, I donât really want to follow that âŚ
Iâm waiting for some sort of text to tell me what this is going to be about.
Since thereâs nothing, I donât know whatâs itâs about.
Iâm not even sure if the page is finished loading.
OK, there it is âŚ
When I hold that down I would hope that it would stay there but it keeps going away.
Even without seeing what the user is talking about, the frustration and confusion are clear. When the test participants tried to use it, either they used it differently from how the developers intended or, when they used it as intended, it didnât behave as they expected. From a usability standpoint, it was largely unusable.
As bad as this situation was, one point was even worse: none of the participants knew what Typhoon was. It became clear that people would never begin trying to work with it because they had no idea what it was for. Usability was beside the point because the product was incomprehensible.
The developers scrambled to fix the problems, to make Typhoon clearer, and to help people use it, but there were no clear directions for them to go in. The product launch was coming up fast, and they were able to fix some of the most obvious problems. Many problems remained, however, and their confidence shaken, they nervously suspected that many more problems existed.
When Typhoon launched, it was met with confusion. Neither the press nor its initial users knew what to do with it. It got significantly less traffic than Bengali had projected and, despite an aggressive advertising campaign, the number of users kept dwindling.
As the development team worked on the next revision of Typhoon, the direction in which to take it became less clear. Fundamental questions kept popping up. There was constant debate about scope, audience, purpose, and functionality. What had seemed certain suddenly seemed precarious. The executives were quickly losing confidence in the teamâs ability to fix Typhoon. The debates continued. Their fixes failed to keep visitors from abandoning the product, and after a couple of months, the project leader was replaced with someone who had a more traditional software background. The new project leader tried to revamp Typhoon into a more ordinary news service, but the new specs made Typhoon look just like the companyâs other products, which ran contrary to the very premise of the service. Requests for additional staff to implement deeper changes were denied. Opinions about how to attract visitors began to multiply and diverge. The team felt betrayed; they felt that their creativity had been wasted and that their good ideas had been being thrown out by management.
Four months after the project launched, the last of the original members abandoned it for other projects within the company. Two months after that, it was quietly closed down and âwritten off as a complete loss. Today, only the T-shirts remain.
Sadly, this is a true story. The details have been changed, but the core of the situation is true. It happened to me. I watched Typhoonâs creation, was the person who ran those tests, and watched it disintegrate. Years later, some of the people involved still have feelings of bitterness that so much effort, so many ideas, and so much innovation was abandoned.
It was abandoned for good reason. It was a bad product. What made it bad was not the quality of the code (which was very tight) or the core innovations (which were real and legitimate). What made it bad was that it was a good product with no understanding of its audience. And a good product that doesnât satisfy the needs, fulfill the desires, or respect the abilities of its audience is not a good product, no matter how good the code or the visual design.
This book is about knowing your audience and using that knowledge to create great software. It will help you avoid situations like Typhoon while still retaining the creativity that leads to innovative, exciting, unique, profitable products. User experience research is a collection of tools designed to allow you to find the boundaries of peopleâs needs and abilities, and its core, the philosophy espoused here, is not about creating solutions but defining problems. The ultimate goal is not merely to make people happy; itâs to make successful products by making people happy. When you know what problems people have, you are much less likely to create solutions that address the wrong problem, or worse, no problem at all.
CHAPTER 2 Do a Usability Test Now!
Basic user research is easy, fast, and highly effective. Some form of user experience research can be done with any product. The question is whether you want to do it yourself. And thereâs only one way to find that out. Try it. In this chapter, you will learn how to do a fast and easy user research technique, a usability test done with your friends and family. After 15 minutes of reading and a couple of hours of listening, you will have a much better understanding of your customers and which parts of your product are difficult to use.
Note If you donât have a working product or a semifunctional prototype, then itâs a bit too early for you to take best advantage of this technique. You should use one of the research techniques that can be done with nothing but an idea, such as contextual inquiry or focus groups. These are discussed in Chapters 8 and 9 of the book, respectively.
A Micro-Usability Test
The usability test will tell you whether your audience can use what youâve made. It helps identify problems people have with your site and reveals difficult interfaces and confusing language. Normally, usability tests are done as part of a larger research series and involve preparation and analysis. Thatâs what Chapters 5 through 16 of this book are about. However, in the interest of presenting something thatâs quick and that provides good bang for the buck, here is the friends and family usability test. Itâs designed to let you get almost immediate feedback on your product, with minimal overhead. If youâre reading this chapter in the morning, you could be talking to people by the end of the workday and rethinking some of your productâs functionality by tomorrow. But give yourself a day or two to prepare if this is your first time conducting user rese...