There are two sides to being a consultant.
On the one hand you get to work with a wide range of clients on projects that are varied and interesting. You’re exposed to different perspectives and ideas, and if you’re open to them it means you’re always learning. It keeps you on your toes and that’s what I like about it.
On the other hand, you are usually contracted to produce a deliverable at the outset of a project with limited scope for change. Sometimes you realise that what you’re doing is not exactly the right thing, but you’re somehow stuck in a one-way project track where your ability to create change is limited. This always feels like an opportunity lost.
But there is hope. Imagine a move away from purely deliverable-based contracts. In Lean UX: Applying Lean Principles to Improve User Experience Jeff Gothelf argues that we:
… give up the illusion of control that a deliverable-based contract offers but gain a freedom to pursue meaningful and high quality solutions that are defined in terms of outcomes, not feature lists.
So instead of working mostly in isolation, making something, you turn the process on its head by involving clients more in what you’re doing. What becomes visible is the boundary of a process and not the physicality of a thing. This has many advantages, Jeff Gothelf continues:
… both agency and client benefit form additional insight, feedback, and collaboration with one another.
The learning from this process may reframe the problem, or for example, bypass the creation of a wireframe deck completely, leading straight to the creation of a MVP.
Insight, feedback, and collaboration are the necessary foundations for making better products. Getting there requires boldness and a desire to explore, from both consultants and clients alike. And I think it is a risk worth taking.
By Phil Barrett
If you want to succeed as a digital businesses you need product management. But understanding what product management is, or what a product manager does, can be difficult. I thought a diagram might help.
Part of the problem is that product managers need to adapt their approach based on context. You might be product managing a startup, searching for a killer business model. Or working in a large corporation, creating a digital interface to an existing business product. Or perhaps you’re managing software that has been around for years, with dedicated and vocal users.
Tactics will be different in each case. But there are some fundamentals about the process that stay true regardless. So I came up with this.
All in all there seem to be three phases. They can vary in length and importance, and there are different tactics you can employ in each one. But there do seem to be three. I’ve called them product discovery, ship MVP and grow incrementally.
And in each of the phases, you should be doing some of everything: Designing, planning, building and learning from customers.
What changes from phase to phase is the balance and purpose of the activity on each track…
The Android Google Plus app is experimenting with an alternative navigation pattern by removing the hamburger icon and replacing it with a drop down called “everything”. If Google is considering losing the hamburger icon, does it really have a future?
Chris discusses this and possible alternatives in his blog post:
Mxit has launched their new Android app recently and it’s getting a good response from their target users. I chatted to Ryno Kotzé and Maia Grotepass, two members of the dev team, about how they did it.
The psychologist Rom Harré wrote that ‘the primary human reality is persons in conversation’. It’s a validating idea for design thinkers and user-centred designers because we do a lot of talking, and listening, to find the emotional touchpoints between people and products.
With Harré’s quote in the back of my mind I joined a World Design Capital 2014 co-design workshop, teaming up with members of the community, city officials, and fellow designers to talk about regenerating the Gatesville Central Business District and the Lansdowne Civic Precinct.
The co-design workshop was structured as an end-to-end design thinking process, and for many participants it was their first encounter with design thinking. But the premise of the day was that everyone is a design thinker, and we were encouraged to participate in conversations structured by the primary design thinking stages of:
First up, members of the community told their stories, setting the scene and context for the workshop. Next, they brainstormed the challenges faced by the two sites in their community, followed by a card sort and voting session to identify and prioritise the key issues.
Voting in progress to whittle down prioritised issues.
Yesterday was Global Accessibility Awareness Day. Accessibility means making sure that people can get all of your content quickly and easily, regardless of the any disabilities they have, the device they’re using, or the type of connection they’re on. The Flow team took time out to do some of the participation activities (Go mouseless, enlarge your fonts, use a screen reader) that the GAAD site suggests. We came away with a renewed appreciation for making our work accessible. That means keeping this in mind from the Content Strategy phase all the way through to front-end development. Here are some more details of the things we found out.
We put aside our mice and trackpads, and used only our keyboards to interact with our computers. Figuring out the basic ways to navigate was relatively easy, but time-consuming. For things that we couldn’t figure out, we found that we had to know the right technical terms when searching otherwise we wouldn’t find the search results you needed.
It can be very difficult to target a particular link. The tab order of links may take you all around the page, but you might never hit the link you actually want. Most pages have a lot of links, which only makes it worse. Google calendar was particularly guilty here: you can tab all around the calendar, but not individual entries. It seems like the only way to edit an entry directly is to search for it first. On top of that, quite a lot of sites don’t use
:focus styles: you can’t see what you’ve got highlighted, so you don’t know what you’re clicking.
We often work with corporate brand guidelines that specify in detail what the brand is about: from fonts and colours, to how you’re allowed to use the logo on a T-shirt.
Skype explains how not to use their logo.
These guidelines usually contain a single page for how the brand should be represented on the web, which is fine – it means the web designers have some room for interpretation.
But there is one frequent oversight in brand guidelines when it comes to web use: not enough colours.
If your branding specifies only 1 colour, or 1 colour with black or grey, a variety of usability problems can happen.
How necessary hamburger icons are is one of the conversation topics around the Flow coffee fountain. Chris expresses some of his thoughts in: Mmm, I do like hamburgers… with a side of off screen canvas.
“Off screen canvases are the best option that we have at the moment to get the nav out of the way, and its not going anywhere soon.”
I’ver recently been thinking how I decide whether I should buy an app or not. And I have found that this choice is different in iOS and Android:
On Saturday mornings, we occasionally build mazes for the kids’ pet hamsters out of Duplo. This is fun for everyone, including the hamsters who get a chance to come out of their cages and stretch their little legs.
As the architects of the mazes, we come up with various features that make the mazes more interesting to us. Rooms full of tasty treats at the end of long and complicated tunnels. We even did an elevator once. Here’s a typical maze…
As you can see, it’s pretty hard to tell where the rewards will lie. To the left? Or the right? That’s all the hamster can see. Very often, the hamsters choose to escape from the experience altogether. (It’s amazing how tall you need to build the walls to stop this. That’s a lesson in itself.)
To make a successful maze that the hamster will run around in, we have to appreciate that the hamster can’t see the whole maze at once. They can only live through the experience of it step by step. And if a given step isn’t easy and clearly rewarding, then they won’t take it – even if there’s a mountain of popcorn waiting for them just a little further on.
As Flow has worked with various corporations in South Africa, it always seems to come down to the same key activity: Helping teams think through “what would our customer want to do next”.
The simple act of viewing an experience step by step, as a customer would, solves squabbles, uncovers points of pain, and drives out simple new ideas that make things work better for everyone. Without doing this, business units and dev teams tend just to think about the component parts and how to click them together. And customers are faced with fragmented experiences that range from irrelevant to downright bizarre.
The tools I’m talking about are just personas, scenarios, and journey maps here – techniques that are as old as the hills. But they’re still fundamental, and if you do them earnestly and intelligently they make all the difference.