Alan Cooper, Robert Reinmann, David Cronin - About Face 3- The Essentials of Interaction Design (pdf)

by About Face 3- The Essentials of Interaction Design (pdf)

  Goals motivate usage patterns

  People’s or personas’ goals motivate them to behave the way they do. Thus, goals not only provide an answer to why and how personas desire to use a product but also can serve as a shorthand in the designer’s mind for the sometimes complex behaviors in which a persona engages and, therefore, for their tasks as well.

  Goals should be inferred from qualitative data

  You usually can’t ask a person what his goals are directly. Either he won’t be able to articulate them, or he won’t be accurate or even perfectly honest. People simply aren’t well prepared to answer such questions accurately. Therefore, designers and researchers need to carefully reconstruct goals from observed behaviors, answers to

  09_084113 ch05.qxp 4/3/07 6:02 PM Page 89

  Chapter 5: Modeling Users: Personas and Goals

  89

  other questions, nonverbal cues, and clues from the environment such as the titles of books on shelves. One of the most critical tasks in the modeling of personas is identifying goals and expressing them succinctly: Each goal should be expressed as a simple sentence.

  User goals and cognitive processing

  Don Norman’s book Emotional Design introduced the idea that product design should address three different levels of cognitive and emotional processing, which he has called visceral, behavioral, and reflective. Norman’s ideas, based on years of cognitive research, provide an articulated structure for modeling user responses to product and brand and a rational context for many intuitions long held by professional designers.

  Norman’s three levels of cognitive processing are:

  Visceral — The most immediate level of processing, in which we react to visual and other sensory aspects of a product that we can perceive before significant interaction occurs. Visceral processing helps us make rapid decisions about what is good, bad, safe, or dangerous. This is one of the most exciting types of human behavior, and one of the most challenging to effectively support with digital products. Malcolm Gladwell explores this level of cognitive processing in his book Blink. For even more in-depth study of intuitive decision making, see Gary Klein’s Sources of Power or Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind by Guy Claxton.

  Behavioral — The middle level of processing that lets us manage simple, everyday behaviors, which according to Norman, constitute the majority of human activity. Norman states — and rightly so — that historically, interaction design and usability practices have nearly exclusively addressed this level of cognitive processing. Behavioral processing can enhance or inhibit both lower-level visceral reactions and higher-level reflective responses, and conversely, both visceral and reflective processing can enhance or inhibit behavioral processing.

  Reflective — The least immediate level of processing, which involves conscious consideration and reflection on past experiences. Reflective processing can enhance or inhibit behavioral processing but has no direct access to visceral reactions. This level of cognitive processing is accessible only via memory, not through direct interaction or perception. The most interesting aspect of reflective processing as it relates to design is that, through reflection, we are able to integrate our experiences with designed artifacts into our broader life experiences and, over time, associate meaning and value with the artifacts themselves.

  09_084113 ch05.qxp 4/3/07 6:02 PM Page 90

  90

  Part I: Understanding Goal-Directed Design

  Designing for Visceral Responses

  Designing for the visceral level means designing what the senses initially perceive, before any deeper involvement with a product or artifact occurs. For most of us, that means designing visual appearance and motion, though sound can also play a role — think of the distinctive Mac power-up chord. Those of us designing devices may design for tactile sensations as well.

  A misconception often arises when discussing visceral-level design: that designing for visceral response is about designing beautiful things. Battlefield software and radiation-therapy systems are just two examples where designing for beauty may not be the proper focus. Visceral design is actually about designing for affect —

  that is, eliciting the appropriate psychological or emotional response for a particular context — rather than for aesthetics alone. Beauty — and the feelings of transcendence and pleasure it evokes — is really only a small part of the possible affective design palette. For example, an MP3 player and an online banking system require very different affects. We can learn a great deal about affect from architecture, the cinema and stage, and industrial design.

  However, in the world of consumer products and services, attractive user interfaces are typically appropriate. Interestingly, usability researchers have demonstrated that users initially judge attractive interfaces to be more usable, and that this belief often persists long after a user has gained sufficient experience with an interface to have direct evidence to the contrary.9 Perhaps the reason for this is that users, encouraged by perceived ease of use, make a greater effort to learn what may be a challenging interface and are then unwilling to consider their investment ill spent.

  For the scrupulous designer, this means that, when a user interface promises ease of use at the visceral level — or whatever else the visceral promise of an interaction may be — it should then be sure to deliver on that promise at the behavioral level.

  Designing for Behavior

  Designing for the behavioral level means designing product behaviors that complement a user’s own behaviors, implicit assumptions, and mental models. Of the three levels of design Norman contemplates, behavioral design is perhaps the most familiar to interaction designers and usability professionals.

  One intriguing aspect of Norman’s three-level model as it relates to design is his assertion that behavioral processing, uniquely among his three levels, has direct influence upon and is influenced directly by both of the other two levels of processing. This would seem to imply that the day-to-day behavioral aspects of interaction design should be the primary focus of our design efforts, with visceral and reflective considerations playing a supporting role. Getting design of behavior

  09_084113 ch05.qxp 4/3/07 6:02 PM Page 91

  Chapter 5: Modeling Users: Personas and Goals

  91

  right — assuming that we also pay adequate attention to the other levels —

  provides our greatest opportunity for positively influencing the way users construct their experience with products.

  Not following this line of reasoning can lead to the problem of users’ initial impressions being out of sync with reality. Also, it is difficult to imagine designing for reflective meaning in memory without a solid purpose and set of behaviors in place for the here and now. The user experience of a product or artifact, therefore, should ideally harmonize elements of visceral design and reflective design with a focus on behavioral design.

  Designing for Reflection

  Reflective processing — and, particularly, what it means for design — is perhaps the most challenging aspect of the three levels of processing that Norman discusses.

  What is clear is that designing for the reflective level means designing to build long-term product relationships. What isn’t clear at all is the best way to ensure success —

  if that’s even possible — at the reflective level. Is it chance that drives success here —

  being in the right place at the right time — or can premeditated design play a part in making it happen?

  In describing reflective design, Norman uses several high-concept designs for commodity products as examples — such as impractically configured teapots and the striking Phillipe Starck juicer that graces the cover of his book. It is easy to see how such products — whose value and purpose are, in essence, the aesthetic statements they make — could appeal strongly to people’s reflective desire for uniqueness or cultural sophistication that perhaps may come from an artistic or stylish self-image.

  It is more difficult to see how products
that also serve a truly useful purpose need to balance the stylistic and the elegant with the functional. The Apple iPod comes very close to achieving this balance. Although its click-wheel navigation scheme is perhaps less than optimal in some respects, users’ visceral reaction to the product is tremendous, due to its elegant industrial design. Its reflective potential is also significant, because of the powerful emotional connection people experience with their music. It’s a winning combination that no competitor has yet been able to challenge.

  Few products become iconic in people’s lives in the way that, say, the Sony Walk-man or the iPod has. Clearly there are some products that stand little chance of ever becoming symbolic in peoples lives — like Ethernet routers, for instance — no matter how wonderful they look or how well they behave. However, when the design of a product or service addresses users’ goals and motivations — possibly going beyond the product’s primary purpose, yet somehow connected to it via personal or cultural associations — the opportunity for the creation of reflective meaning is greatly enhanced.

  09_084113 ch05.qxp 4/3/07 6:02 PM Page 92

  92

  Part I: Understanding Goal-Directed Design

  The three types of user goals

  In Emotional Design, Norman presents his three-level theory of cognitive processing and discusses its potential importance to design. However, Norman does not suggest a method for systematically integrating his model of cognition and affect into the practice of design or user research. In our practice, we’ve found that the key to doing so lies in properly delineating and modeling three specific types of user goals as part of each persona’s definition.10

  Three types of user goals correspond to Norman’s visceral, behavioral, and reflective processing levels:

  Experience goals

  End goals

  Life goals

  We describe each of these in detail in the following sections.

  Experience goals

  Experience goals are simple, universal, and personal. Paradoxically, this makes them difficult for many people to talk about, especially in the context of impersonal business. Experience goals express how someone wants to feel while using a product or the quality of their interaction with the product. These goals provide focus for a product’s visual and aural characteristics, its interactive feel — such as animated transitions, latency, and the snap ratio (clickiness) of a physical button — and its physical design by providing insights into persona motivations that express themselves at the visceral level. For example:

  Feel smart or in control

  Have fun

  Feel cool or hip or relaxed

  Remain focused and alert

  When products make users feel stupid or uncomfortable, their self-esteem drops and their effectiveness plummets, regardless of their other goals. Their level of resentment also increases. Enough of this type of treatment and users will be primed to use any chance to subvert the system. Any product that egregiously violates experience goals will ultimately fail, regardless of how well it purports to achieve other goals.

  09_084113 ch05.qxp 4/3/07 6:02 PM Page 93

  Chapter 5: Modeling Users: Personas and Goals

  93

  Interaction, visual, and industrial designers must translate persona experience goals into form, behavior, motion, and auditory elements that communicate the proper feel, affect, emotion, and tone. Visual language studies, as well as mood or inspiration boards, which attempt to establish visual themes based on persona attitudes and behaviors, are a useful tool for defining the tonal expectations of personas.

  End goals

  End goals represent the user’s motivation for performing the tasks associated with using a specific product. When you pick up a cell phone or open a document with a word processor, you likely have an outcome in mind. A product or service can help accomplish such goals directly or indirectly. These goals are the focus of a product’s interaction design, information architecture, and the functional aspects of industrial design. Because behavioral processing influences both visceral and reflective responses, end goals should be among the most significant factors in determining the overall product experience. End goals must be met for users to think that a product is worth their time and money.

  Examples of end goals include:

  Be aware of problems before they become critical

  Stay connected with friends and family

  Clear my to-do list by 5:00 every day

  Find music that I’ll love

  Get the best deal

  Interaction designers must use end goals as the foundation for a product’s behaviors, tasks, look, and feel. Context or day-in-the-life scenarios and cognitive walkthroughs are effective tools for exploring users’ goals and mental models, which, in turn, facilitate appropriate behavioral design.

  Life goals

  Life goals represent personal aspirations of the user that typically go beyond the context of the product being designed. These goals represent deep drives and motivations that help explain why the user is trying to accomplish the end goals he seeks to accomplish. Life goals describe a persona’s long-term desires, motivations, and self-image attributes, which cause the persona to connect with a product. These goals form the focus for a product’s overall design, strategy, and branding. For example:

  Live the good life

  Succeed in my ambitions to . . .

  09_084113 ch05.qxp 4/3/07 6:02 PM Page 94

  94

  Part I: Understanding Goal-Directed Design

  Be a connoisseur of . . .

  Be attractive, popular, or respected by my peers

  Interaction designers must translate life goals into high-level system capabilities, formal design concepts, and brand strategy. Mood boards and context scenarios can be helpful in exploring different aspects of product concepts, and broad ethnographic research and cultural modeling are critical for discovering users’ behavior patterns and deeper motivations. Life goals rarely figure directly into the design of specific elements or behaviors of an interface. However, they are very much worth keeping in mind. A product that the user discovers will take him closer to his life goals, and not just his end goals, will win him over more decisively than any marketing campaign. Addressing life goals of users makes the difference (assuming that other goals are also met) between a satisfied user and a fanatically loyal user.

  User goals are user motivations

  In summary, it’s important to remember that understanding personas is more about understanding motivations and goals than it is about understanding specific tasks or demographics. Linking up persona goals with Norman’s model, top-level user motivations include:

  Experience goals, which are related to visceral processing: how a user wants to feel

  End goals, which are related to behavior: what a user wants to do

  Life goals, which are related to reflection: who a user wants to be Using personas, goals, and scenarios (as you’ll learn in upcoming chapters) provides the key to unlocking the power of visceral, behavioral, and reflective design, and bringing these together into a harmonious whole. While some of our best designers seem to understand and act upon these aspects of design almost intuitively, consciously designing for all levels of human cognition and emotion offers tremendous potential for creating more satisfying and delightful user experiences.

  Types of goals

  User goals are not the only type of goals that designers need to take into account.

  Customer goals, business goals, and technical goals are all nonuser goals. Typically, these goals must be acknowledged and considered, but they do not form the basis for the design direction. Although these goals do need to be addressed, they must not be addressed at the expense of the user.

  09_084113 ch05.qxp 4/3/07 6:02 PM Page 95

  Chapter 5: Modeling Users: Personas and Goals

  95

  Customer goals

  Customers, as already discussed, have different goals than users. The exact nature
of these goals varies quite a bit between consumer and enterprise products. Consumer customers are often parents, relatives, or friends who often have concerns about the safety and happiness of the persons for whom they are purchasing the product.

  Enterprise customers are typically IT managers, and they often have concerns about security, ease of maintenance, and ease of customization. Customer personas also may have their own life, experience, and especially end goals in relation to the product if they use it in any capacity. Customer goals should never trump end goals but need to be considered within the overall design.

  Business and organizational goals

  Businesses and other organizations have their own requirements for products, services, and systems, which should also be modeled and considered when devising design solutions. While the goals of businesses, where users and customers work, are typically captured in user and customer personas, it is often useful to define the business goals of the organization commissioning the design and developing and selling (or otherwise distributing) the product. Clearly, these organizations are hoping to accomplish something with the product (which is why they are willing to spend money and effort on design and development),

  Business goals include the following:

  Increase profit

  Increase market share

  Retain customers

  Defeat the competition

  Use resources more efficiently