Re: [Sigia-l] Making assumptions

Jonathan,

Embracing your personal assumptions is not insane. On the contrary, this
is exactly what separates one designer from another. If this weren't the
case, with equal access to the research, every designer would (in
theory) come up with exactly the same result. Obviously, this isn't the
case.

Perhaps this is what Steve Jobs means when he says that Apple doesn't do
user research. Rather, they use their impeccable taste and excellent
intuition (and a good understanding of the market) to create products
that haven't ever been seen by other vendors. And they validate in the
market.

When the first iPhone was announced, I criticized it for lack of video,
3G, and a couple of other things. Apple has since validated,
particularly in international terms, and has addressed these (and other)
issues. But the basic process was sound and the product was gorgeous.
Apple designed a product that has since been copied (unsuccessfully) by
Nokia, HTC, Ericsson, LG and a couple of others. 

Our fledgling community's insistence on process and rules is not unlike
the scientific world of the late 1800s. Ultimately, the process strives
not to answer questions but to obliterate the questions.

Cheers,
Eric

-----------------------
Eric Reiss
CEO
The FatDUX Group
Copenhagen, Denmark
http://www.fatdux.com
office: (+45) 39 29 67 77
mobile: (+45) 20 12 88 44
skype: ericreiss
twitter: @elreiss
 
FatDUX is an official sponsor of the
Usability Professionals' Association
http://www.upassoc.org
 
-----------------------
 
If you received this in error, please let us know and delete the file.
FatDUX advises all recipients to virus scan all emails, and to eat five
portions of fruit and vegetables daily.


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Jonathan Baker-Bates
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 17:34 PM
To: SIGIA-L
Subject: [Sigia-l] Making assumptions

I've been thinking about research and design recently, and have had an
idea I'd like to pursue. But I thought I'd ask for a sanity check on it
here first.

The practical effect of research is to give me design assumptions with
which to work. But no matter how much research, persona building and
general selfless listening I do prior to any design activity, I find it
impossible to exclude personal (sometimes I like to call it
"professional") opinion about how something should be designed. This may
or may not have anything much to do with what I've observed or read
about in the research, but are generally things I would like to do
(something about trying to innovate, perhaps).

So, what would happen if I embraced my assumptions for what they are:
ideas which may or may not be correct, but that need to be validated.
So, in creating, say, a web site, I would be able to list all the
underlying assumptions that directed the design of that site. For
example, "People won't scroll below the fold on the home page, but will
do so on the result page", "Price is the only determinant of
conversion", "People don't mind paying credit card fees", "Slider
controls are confusing" etc. 

I can then verify those assumptions in whatever way I can, as and when I
get the opportunity later. Every time I find something that either
agrees with or contradicts an assumption, I note it. Some assumptions
will be strengthened, others weakened or disproved entirely. Still
others might need to be split into separate assumptions, and so on. All
the while, the assumptions list gives me ideas for design directions,
ammunition to support my arguments, and a general discussion guide for
any research I do. Some of the assumptions might be ones I initially
disagree with (the ones those marketing droids believe in, for example).
But I'd include them too.

As an aside, this would also bring a good deal of continuity across the
research programme overall. All too often, different types of research
reveal different things, or point to contradictory conclusions. Just
because I see most people in one user test ignore the fold, it doesn't
mean I can conclude anything much from that until I see the same thing
happen in, say, a remote test, and again in some clickstream data, or
another test, etc. It's not exactly "three strikes and you're out" but
it's getting that way.

So - is anyone else catalogue design assumptions about the use of their
systems, and using that to structure research over time? Does it sound
like a decent approach?

Jonathan









------------
IA Summit 2009: 
Peabody Hotel in Memphis
Pre cons on March 18 and 19   
Sessions on March 20, 21, 22  
-----
When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
*Plain text, please; NO Attachments

Searchable Archive at http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
________________________________________
Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: [email protected]
Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l

------------
A Summit 2010
April 7-11, 2010
Pre Conference Seminars: April 7-8
IA Summit: April 9-11
Hyatt Regency
Phoenix, AZ  
-----
When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
*Plain text, please; NO Attachments

Searchable Archive at http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
________________________________________
Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: [email protected]
Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l