Understanding Biases

If you’re new here, you may want to sub­scribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Bias is a com­mon human trait and cog­nit­ive bias affects all of us. Wiki­pe­dia defines ‘cog­nit­ive bias’ as “the human tend­ency to draw incor­rect con­clu­sions in cer­tain cir­cum­stances based on cog­nit­ive factors rather than evidence”.

Bias is an out­come of human thought and often based on rules of thumb. Cog­nit­ive biases are instances of evolved men­tal beha­vior. Some are pre­sum­ably adapt­ive, for example, because they lead to more effect­ive actions in given con­texts or enable faster decisions when faster decisions are of greater value. Oth­ers pre­sum­ably res­ult from a lack of appro­pri­ate men­tal mech­an­isms, or from the mis­ap­plic­a­tion of a mech­an­ism that is adapt­ive under dif­fer­ent circumstances.

Though cog­nit­ive bias falls under the realm of Psy­cho­logy, cog­nit­ive bias plays a vital role in user research. Under­stand­ing the vari­ous forms of cog­nit­ive biases will help a usab­il­ity ana­lyst when per­form­ing con­tex­tual inquir­ies and user interviews.

Wiki­pe­dia lists all the cog­nit­ive biases that makes for an inter­est­ing read. The list of biases allows a researcher under­stand the con­text behind user’s approach to tasks. For example, under­stand­ing the Hawthorne Effect – which is about the tend­ency to per­form or per­ceive dif­fer­ently when one knows they are being observed – will help dur­ing a con­tex­tual inquiry. An under­stand­ing of the Plan­ning Fal­lacy effect is use­ful in cal­cu­lat­ing the task com­ple­tion times.

Posted in Usability | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

In defence of Ferrari

These past few days, a video of a Fer­rari engin­eer explain­ing the com­plex­ity of the Fer­rari F10 For­mula 1 racing car has been mak­ing the rounds. Every blog post or dis­cus­sion forum I have come across so far seem to say one and one thing only: “It is a usab­il­ity night­mare.

Bull­shit. Every one seems to have for­got­ten the basic tenet of usab­il­ity: “Know the user, and YOU are not the user.

If a car designer tries to cre­ate a sim­ilar steer­ing wheel for a pro­duc­tion vehicle, I can under­stand the uproar. But for a cus­tom­ized piece of machinery like a for­mula 1 car, the dis­cus­sion is moot.

Most people don’t under­stand what a motor racing car is. Com­par­ing it with an ordin­ary road vehicle is idiocy. A cas­ual driver never deals with issues like con­fig­ur­ing the fuel mix­ture, adjust­ing down-forces and wings. He never drives at speeds of over 300 kmph. He never exper­i­ences g-forces of over 4. A For­mula 1 car is a com­plex piece of machinery… Try­ing to apply ‘iPod style’ usab­il­ity prin­ciples will not work…

The defin­i­tion of usab­il­ity is ‘The extent to which a product can be used by spe­cified users to achieve spe­cified goals with effect­ive­ness, effi­ciency and sat­is­fac­tion in a spe­cified con­text of use.’ And I see no reason why the F10 steer­ing wheel doesn’t adhere to this defin­i­tion. It is designed for

  • a ‘spe­cified users’ – a For­mula 1 racing driver
  • ‘achieve spe­cified goals’ – win the race
  • ‘effect­ive­ness’ and ‘effi­ciency’- the vari­ous func­tions avail­able to the racing driver to win the race
  • ‘sat­is­fac­tion’ – a F1 car is built around a single per­son, cus­tom­ized to his needs.
  • ‘a spe­cified con­text of use’ – the car and its com­pon­ents are built for one thing only – speed and maneuverability.

As a for­mula 1 afi­cion­ado and a UX prac­ti­tioner, I belive the F10 steer­ing wheel does what is sup­posed to do — help the driver race his vehicle.

Posted in Usability | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Book Review: Rocket Surgery Made Easy

Steve Krug’s Don’t Make Me Think has been the book I recom­mend for any­one inter­ested in under­stand­ing usab­il­ity. His second effort, Rocket Sur­gery Made Easy: The Do-It-Yourself Guide to Find­ing and Fix­ing Usab­il­ity Prob­lems, expands the idea of one of the chapters in Don’t Make Me Think. Stay­ing true to the book’s sub­title of The Do-It-Yourself Guide to Find­ing and Fix­ing Usab­il­ity Prob­lems, the book is a DIY guide to identify usab­il­ity issues; though the fix­ing part is glossed over in the book. Steve Krug guides us through a pro­cess of con­duct­ing a small usab­il­ity test and provides guidelines to run one such test in the book.

Rocket Surgery Made Easy by Steve Krug

Rocket Sur­gery Made Easy by Steve Krug

The key ‘max­ims’ accord­ing to Steve Krug are:

  • A morn­ing a month, that’s all we ask. [Con­duct a simple three-person usab­il­ity test fre­quently.]
  • Start earlier than you think makes sense. [Begin your test­ing as early as pos­sible in your product devel­op­ment.]
  • Recruit loosely and grade on a curve. [Try to get people who match your end-user pro­files closely. Impro­vise if required.]
  • Make it a spec­tator sport. [Involve every­one asso­ci­ated with the pro­ject and get them involved.]
  • Focus ruth­lessly on a small num­ber of the most import­ant prob­lems. [Fix the import­ant issue first.]
  • When fix­ing prob­lems, always do the least you can do. [The smal­lest changes are the most easi­est change to make.]

At the end of the book, you get an idea on how to con­duct a small usab­il­ity test. The book tries to limit itself to a DIY approach and hence skips a large-scale usab­il­ity test­ing pro­cess. But once one gets exper­i­ence con­duct­ing usab­il­ity tests on a smal­ler scale, it is just a mat­ter of scal­ing it up to encom­pass a large usab­il­ity test scenario.

If you have read Don’t Make Me Think and Design­ing the Obvi­ous and you are still inter­ested in get­ting your hands dirty with usab­il­ity, then this book is def­in­itely a must-read and a must-have in your book­shelf and I would rate it as 4/5.

Posted in Books | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Is technical communication a part of user experience?

Is tech­nical com­mu­nic­a­tion a part of user experience?

Abso­lutely. Without Doubt.

One major inter­ac­tion that a user has with a sys­tem is the doc­u­ment­a­tion accom­pa­ny­ing the product, either as prin­ted manu­als or their elec­tronic cous­ins. In fact, any text that a user sees on the screen in the form of labels and copy is a form of tech­nical com­mu­nic­a­tion – another source of inter­ac­tion with the user.

I’ve had many people ask me about trans­ition­ing from tech­nical com­mu­nic­a­tion to usability/user exper­i­ence. All I can say to them is that you might already be doing it; only that you aren’t aware of it yet.

Another ques­tion I get to field often is how to ‘get into’ it. The answer that I give mostly is Volun­teer. Volun­teer to check screens/copy text for clarity/disambiguity. Volun­teer to check every inter­ac­tion a user would have with the sys­tem. Provide clear and mean­ing­ful copy for error messages.

Tech­nical Com­mu­nic­at­ors often for­get a very import­ant fact – they are often the first users of a sys­tem. Most of the time, they are just con­cerned about just doc­u­ment­ing the sys­tem, rather than look­ing at it from a user per­spect­ive. I’ve seen this hap­pen a lot of times and have been guilty of the same on sev­eral occasions.

In a blog post at Adapt­ive Path, Peter Mer­holz writes, I believe that user exper­i­ence is not best thought of as an activ­ity or func­tion, but as a mind­set. To vary­ing degrees, every customer-facing per­son in an organ­iz­a­tion has an impact on, and, thus, respons­ib­il­ity for the user experience.

That’s some­thing every­one aspir­ing to be a usab­il­ity prac­ti­tioner ought to be tak­ing to heart.

Posted in Technical Communication, Usability | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Defenestrating Tables & Indices

Is it time to stop cre­at­ing those page-wasting Table of Con­tents and Indices in a world where manu­als are no longer being printed?

Out of the window, via Flickr user: Squirmelia

Out of the win­dow, via Flickr user: Squirmelia

We deliver all of our doc­u­ment­a­tion as PDFs to our cus­tom­ers (except for that rare mar­ket­ing col­lat­er­als that get prin­ted and dis­trib­uted). These PDFs are uploaded to a repos­it­ory and made avail­able to cus­tom­ers (external and internal). Hav­ing observed how people use our doc­u­ment­a­tion these past few years, I noticed that only a few people actu­ally ‘glance’ at the Table of Con­tents. Every­one seems to like the Search but­ton in Acrobat Reader. Just fire a few keywords and Presto!, here are the results.

All that time and effort I spent in devel­op­ing that ToC and Index was down the pro­ver­bial drain as they never saw the user’s eyes. Not that you can blame them for not look­ing at my lov­ingly craf­ted ToC. Inform­a­tion seek­ing has moved away from get­ting to know the struc­ture of a guide from the ToC or nar­row­ing down a select­ive topic from the Index is no longer the right way to do things. It has evolved to the search box. PDFs are great for search­ing and you can even search mul­tiple PDFs simultaneously.

In a world when doc­u­ment­a­tion was prin­ted and delivered to cus­tom­ers as prin­ted books, the Table of Con­tents and the Index made sense as you can ‘run’ a search on a prin­ted book. But do they still make sense in an elec­tronic world where doc­u­ments are cre­ated as search­able PDFs?

Is it time to elim­in­ate tables and indices from the doc­u­ment­a­tion deliv­er­ables, espe­cially when they are not being printed?

Posted in Deliverables, Technical Communication | Tagged , | 2 Comments

more than 100 percent

Dig­ging through my phone’s pho­tos today, I found this photo of an Ubuntu install. Think­ing back to the incid­ent, The latest ver­sion of Ubuntu was out (the Jaunty Jack­alope ver­sion) and I was installing it on my laptop. The install­a­tion went on fine till I saw this screen.

More than 100%

More than 100%

Wait a minute! 114%!!! Lucky, my phone was nearby and I took this snap­shot for posterity.

This Brandon Sanderson-esque pro­gress bar is unac­cept­able. I have heard of people telling that they will do more than 100%. But this is frankly the first time, I’ve seen a soft­ware do it. :)

I was won­der­ing what would’ve been the reason for the pro­gress bar cross­ing 100. Some per­son def­in­itely would’ve for­got­ten to declare the vari­able that stored the pro­gress per­cent­age. The max­imum limit must have been set as 100, but I guess someone missed it. Cor­rect me if I am mis­taken but I thought Ubuntu code went through more eye­balls than any Win­dows OS code.

Posted in Usability | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

about the name

As a kid, I tore pages out of my note­books and make paper rock­ets out of them. The grave­yard adjoin­ing my house served up good thermals for my planes to stay up in the air for longer times and also try out inter­est­ing vari­ations of planes.

When I wanted a name for the site that was about doc­u­ment­a­tion and user exper­i­ence, I decided to name it as PaperAr­row where ‘paper’ would stand for the doc­u­ment­a­tion (manu­als) and ‘arrow’ serves as a ref­er­ence or sign­post for help. Relat­ing to the user exper­i­ence side of busi­ness, the ref­er­ences are wire­frames and pro­to­typ­ing for ‘paper’ and task flows, user jour­neys, and flow­charts for ‘arrow’. And the domain name was avail­able, which clinched the deal for me. :)

Posted in Site | Leave a comment

Wireframes for the Wicked

In this SXSWi 2009 panel, Nick Finck, Donna Spen­cer, and Michael Angeles talk about wire­frames, par­tic­u­larly the vari­ous types of wire­frames. The best part of the panel is the Q&A ses­sion that fol­lows the presentation.

Posted in Deliverables | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

to err is human

One recent after­noon, I got draf­ted into review­ing and edit­ing a bunch of error mes­sages for a product. It was sup­posed to be a quick one hour work. But these assign­ments never really turn out be an hour’s job.

All I had was an Excel file with around 20 mes­sages that had the cur­rent error mes­sage and a descrip­tion when/how the error mes­sage occurs. Feel­ing it would be a good exer­cise to spend the after­noon, I made my way towards the product devel­op­ment team. As we star­ted the exer­cise, I real­ised that the team had no idea about error mes­sages. They just got in touch with me because I was the tech­nical writer. They had obvi­ously thought that I was there just to cor­rect the gram­mar and punc­tu­ation. I sat down and went through each scen­ario where the error mes­sage occurs and did what was required.

One typ­ical user activ­ity is to cre­ate a con­fig­ur­a­tion file into the data­base by cre­at­ing one or by import­ing an exist­ing con­fig­ur­a­tion. The dev team wanted me to look into the errors that occur dur­ing the import pro­cess. Dur­ing that pro­cess, I iden­ti­fied issues with the sequence of error mes­sages appear­ing because the inputs were not val­id­ated atom­ic­ally. Rather, they were val­id­ated as a batch and you got a buck­et­ful of error mes­sages that should have been caught earlier. Being modal in nature, the user had no choice but to click the Ok or Can­cel but­ton to move on, which was too late. And these error mes­sages really weren’t serving any pur­pose other than the developer’s need to say that the user made a error.

I explained that a good error mes­sage con­sists of three parts: what went wrong (a reason), why it was wrong (the prob­lem), and what to do next (a call for action). Mes­sages that fol­low this approach help the user move on with their flow with min­imal inter­rup­tions. I also explained it was bet­ter to anti­cip­ate pos­sible error scen­arios and pre­vent them from hap­pen­ing rather than dis­play an error mes­sage after­wards. As Alan Cooper men­tions as a design prin­ciple in About Face 3, ‘Error mes­sage boxes stop the pro­ceed­ings with idiocy and should be avoided.’ I sug­ges­ted some solu­tions to avoid the error hap­pen­ing in the first place by per­form­ing val­id­a­tions then and there, rather than dis­play them as a bunch of dia­log boxes that force the user to click a but­ton to get the error mes­sage out of the way.

Next up was the lan­guage used in the error mes­sage, which was the ori­ginal reason why I was work­ing with them in the first place. A ques­tion arose if the word ‘please’ had to be included in the error mes­sage like “Please enter an IP address” or should it just read “Enter an IP address”. I felt it was bet­ter to go without the word ‘please’ because it felt too pat­ron­iz­ing and it did not add any value to the sen­tence. Finally I had reworded it to read as “The IP address can­not be blank. Enter a valid IP address. The IP address must be of the form of xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx”.

What really irked me was that the developers had no clue to user inter­face guidelines. They were using a Win­dows applic­a­tion, but they were not fol­low­ing the Win­dows User Exper­i­ence Guidelines, but again even Microsoft doesn’t fol­low it at times. :)

Image via Flickr user:twindx

Image via Flickr user:twindx

Chip in with your thoughts on error mes­sages and design­ing for contingencies…

Posted in Technical Communication, Usability | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Book Review: Designing the Obvious

Tar­geted at people who have heard the word usab­il­ity but not sure how to pro­ceed fur­ther, Robert Hoek­man, Jr. in his book, Design­ing the Obvi­ous, does a good job of explain­ing usab­il­ity and how to use user-centered design con­cepts in web pro­jects. Stay­ing true to the book’s sub­title of A Com­mon Sense Approach to Web Usab­il­ity, the book explains the vari­ous con­cepts and the­or­ies relat­ing to web usability.

“An obvi­ous design would let me get in, get what I need, and get out without spend­ing any time at all think­ing about how the soft­ware works or work with my data.”

Though some con­cepts are just com­mon sense approaches, it becomes easier for web applic­a­tion design­ers to under­stand why they need to do things a cer­tain way. As the book is well-written with ample examples and screen­shots, this book con­tains many tips and tech­niques to improve cur­rent interfaces.

Designing the Obvious by Robert Hoekman Jr

Design­ing the Obvi­ous by Robert Hoek­man Jr

Chapters and what they talk about

  • Defin­ing the Obvious

    Obvi­ous design is the res­ult of a pro­cess that reveals the goals of your users, the con­texts in which they use your sites and soft­ware, and the tasks they really want to achieve.

  • Under­stand Users, Then Ignore Them

    People often don’t do what they think they do. They don’t act the way they think they would act. It is import­ant to do user research before starting.

  • Build Only What Is Abso­lutely Necessary

    Sim­pli­city is bet­ter. Avoid fea­ture creep and nice-to-have features.

  • Sup­port the User’s Men­tal Model

    A user’s men­tal model determ­ines their appre­ci­ation or frus­tra­tion with a product. Design­ing for men­tal mod­els, rather than imple­ment­a­tion mod­els, is the rule to follow.

  • Turn Begin­ners Into Inter­me­di­ates, Immediately

    Don’t design for experts or begin­ners. Design for per­petual intermediates.

  • Handle Errors Wisely
  • The best way to handle errors is to pre­vent them from ever occur­ring. Error mes­sages that do not provide use­ful inform­a­tion do not help users. They hurt users.

  • Design for Uni­form­ity, Con­sist­ency, and Meaning

    Design pat­terns are a power­ful tool when try­ing to main­tain con­sist­ent user exper­i­ences across mul­tiple inter­ac­tions within a single applic­a­tion and across mul­tiple applications.

  • Reduce and Refine

    Clut­ter dimin­ishes a user’s abil­ity to form a work­able men­tal model by crowding the import­ant pieces of a screen in with unim­port­ant ones. Clut­ter makes it more dif­fi­cult for new users to become inter­me­di­ate users by put­ting things in the way of the learn­ing pro­cess. Clut­ter makes it hard to see the design in the design.

  • Don’t Innov­ate When You Can Elevate

    Elev­at­ing the user exper­i­ence is not about adding fea­tures to make an applic­a­tion stand out from the crowd. It’s about tak­ing things away until the heart of the applic­a­tion is allowed to shine through.

If any­thing that was lack­ing in this book, it was a chapter on access­ib­il­ity, which most web developers find them­selves hor­rible at. Per­son­ally, I felt this book, along with Steve Krug’s Don’t Make Me Think, must be made com­puls­ory read­ing and I would rate it as 4/5.

Posted in Books | Tagged , | Leave a comment