April, 2010

Research & Usability — No Comments
18
Apr 10

Example: What We Learned from a Super-Simple User Test

A friend asked me last week for advice about user testing on a tight budget. People at his organization acknowledge  the benefits of user testing, but still can’t quite make the time for it. That reminded me of a few weeks ago where we got important insight — quickly and for free.

We were working on the logo for a campaign to reform the laws that (don’t) protect us from toxic chemicals: I’m Not a Guinea Pig. We had logo concepts that took two different directions. Most people on our project team figured we’d incorporate a guinea pig (below left). The other option was something more chemical-like (below right).

guinea pig test logosOur graphic designer, Jane Song, gave us several options. Our project lead, Amy, showed the designs to a few EDF staffers who weren’t working on the project. She asked them open-ended questions about what they thought the campaign was. For the one featuring the cute little guinea pig, people tended to think the campaign was about animals. The beaker, in contrast, made people think about chemicals.

However, that early version of the lab beaker wasn’t perfectly understood — one person on the project team even thought it was a key! More design adjustments made it less ambiguous, and the final group of quick testers all understood the campaign’s topic clearly.

This process was so simple that I hesitate to even call it “testing” — that makes people think of pricey consultants and one-way mirrors. Of course, we didn’t get nearly as much insight out of it as we would have a formal test with a working prototype, script, and real users. But at this point in the project, all we needed was simple direction on the logo, and we got it.

Who possibly couldn’t have time for this?

Links / Research & Usability — No Comments
5
Apr 10

Pain-Free Design Sign-Off: Highlights from SXSW Session

This presentation by Paul Boag was one of the highlights of SXSW for me. In it, he proposes a fundamentally different way for designers and clients to work together. Even better, he gives concrete steps to move from confrontation to collaboration.

I wanted everyone I work with to hear it, but sadly, the complete video isn’t available. Happily, enough is posted to give a sense of the main points. There are two listening/watching options on his blog, and between them you’ll get a good idea of his approach.

  • A 5-minute highlight reel (2nd thing on the page). It captures the spirit of the presentation, but omits lots of detail.
  • His full rehearsal presentation, which unfortunately, doesn’t have the energy and polish of the live one. If you find it not holding your attention, with about 27 minutes left it gets more concrete — he starts talking about the principles he follows and a process that works better.

Here are some of the notes I took during the session, and where you can find corresponding material on the videos:

  • Designers get too defensive. We need to switch from confrontation to collaboration.
  • The client’s job is to find problems. Our job is to find solutions. (Bad: The client says move the logo 10 pixels to the right.)
  • Don’t ask what sites they like — everyone likes the BBC. Instead, show them sites you think might work for their audience, and get their reactions. (11:20 remaining on the full video)
  • Use mood boards instead of multiple design comps to get quick feedback on design elements and separate the aesthetics from the content. And do the mood boards before the wireframes.  (at 4:15 on the highlight video, or 9:50 left on the full video)
  • Do collaborative wireframing instead of going away and wireframing on your own. (4:45 on the highlight video, 7:30 left on the full video)

I think this approach matches the intention we bring to our work, but it was really helpful to hear it laid out like this, and with specific techniques we might want to try. I hope you find it helpful, too.