User Experience round the bend

Bastards.

You know what bugs me? Toilets.

Toilet flushes, specifically – and even more specifically, toilets where you have a choice of a big flush and a little flush. This choice is usually presented to you in the form of a big button and a little button; sometimes it’s an actual big/small button combo, sometimes it’s two semi-circular-ish buttons combined into one – anyway.

The thing is: I never know which one to press. One button does a small flush, for wee and spiders, and the other one does a big flush, for poo and larger animals (goldfish, say). BUT WHICH IS IT?

As a super-pro UX designer, I’ve designed many an interface where the user has a choice about what to do next. Often there’s a common action, or one we want people to take, and this button is made larger and more friendly than its less popular comrades.

Let’s be blunt: people wee a lot more than they poo. Therefore, in the interests of saving water, you’d expect that the common action in terms of flushing toilets would be the small flush, ergo that the small flush button should be the big (and therefore most pushable) one.

But the problem is is that toilet buttons are generally unlabelled – and without anything overtly declaring the function of each button it’s natural to assume that button size = flush size, in which case the button you probably want is the smaller one.

As a toilet-user I want to use the correct flush to save water, but without knowing what the buttons actually do I’ve only got a 50% chance of getting it right. What’s the system? Is it button size = priority or button size = flush size?

I think the lesson here is that just because you have a system for your UI – colour-coding, icons, anything else that your UX and Design team know like the back of their hands because it’s, you know, OBVIOUS – that doesn’t mean that other people understand it.

Unhelpful.

A nice friendly “big flush” and “little flush” on your toilet digital thing will go a long way towards helping people understand what’s what. It’s very easy to be too subtle when it comes to designing UI, especially with all this minimalism malarkey what is in fashion these days. Your audience are not going to spend any time thinking about what a mysterious button means; they’ll either press it without understanding it or just close the toilet site and go somewhere else.

Something something unblocking your sales pipeline, something something round the bend! Does anyone else think about toilets this much, or is it just me?

Abstraction and Wireframing

Before my current incarnation as a UX Architect I was a Flash developer. I spent five years coding all kind of games, sites, and apps, and gradually progressed from simple bits of script to full-on applications and fully abstracted object-oriented code.

My day job now is focused on less technical work like research and wireframes, but I think during those years of coding I learnt some interesting concepts that I’ve carried through to this new role.

I recently wireframed a few simple online art activities for children which involve adding shapes to a canvas, animating a simple figure, making a postcard and so on. None of the activities are very complicated, but as we discussed time estimates and functionality my old developer habits started kicking in.

I found I’ve been thinking about how I’d go about building these apps, which led on to thinking about how that affects the how I wireframe things. As I did so, I found some interesting parallels and insights – so I thought I’d share them here.

Continue reading

My big mouth at Leeds Digital Festival

Leeds Digital Festival, the annual celebration of all stuff digitalish and computery, is nearly upon us. It technically runs over November, but there’s all kinds of bits and bobs going on already.

Anyway, I’m going to be taking part in two panel debates as part of the festival – Doing it for the kids and the UX Lunch, which will hopefully be as tasty as it sounds.

Doing it for the kids is going to be all about digital development for children. We’ll be discussing the opportunities, challenges and pitfalls of creating content for the kids of today, and talking about how to get (and keep) their attention in a media-saturated world. The event is being held at Dock Street Market and is on Thuesday 3rd of November.

The UX Lunch, obviously, is all about User Experience and associated topics. I plan on holding forth about the difference between UCD and UX (which WILL be fascinating) and generally trying to make interesting words come out of my mouth. Unfortunately, to keep ticket prices down there isn’t actually any lunch, but there will be plenty of very clever people and me talking about the whats and wherefores of UX. That one’s at the Adelphi on Wednesday the 9th.

Hope to see you there!

What is this thing called Love?

Well, as well as being the mystical emotion that’s the only thing that can break magic spells, wake sleeping princesses and persuade brainwashed robots that they’re about to kill their one true friend and that they need to snap out of it, it’s an obscure little indie game that’s both beautiful and frustrating.

It’s a puzzling thing. While being nominally an MMO, from what I can gather it’s in the process of being closed down, or dismantled, or whatever happens to virtual worlds when they’re abandoned but not completely turned off. I wandered, lonely as a cloud, for an hour or so, and never once glimpsed anything that might have been another player.

Love is essentially a cross between Minecraft and a tower defence game. The name of the game is building and defending villages from marauding AI tribes, each of which have villages of their own that can be attacked and plundered for ye loot. Given the right tools, players can shoot things, build towers and tool depositories and alter the landscape.

Dotted throughout the sprawling and complicated landscape are various power sources, conduits and tram lines that I’m sure are very useful at some point.

The first thing to say about Love is that it’s beautiful. The whole 3D world is rendered as a soft-edged, constantly shifting, watercolour painting vision. Everything from trees to grass to clouds drifts back and forth like a particularly surreal dream. Fog, clouds and mist roll in and clear again, hiding long drops into murky valleys and making towering staircases and pagodas cast dramatic silhouettes against the sky as the sun rises and sets.

The inhabitants of your village float around clifftops like guardian angels from a half-remembered sci-fi film. Their hair and robes drift in the breeze as they roam, bearing things that might be guns or sticks or tools.

It’s gorgeous.

But it’s also incredibly annoying. Like a lot of other indie games that have great potential but give you virtually no help to puzzle out a difficult interface, obscure building system and complicated tech tree (which I only know about because I saw on a forum, not because I actually figured anything out).

There’s a super-short tutorial that tells you some lies about useful tools being added to your inventory before buggering off, leaving you with nothing to your name but a mysterious glowing monolith. Then you’re on your own, roaming the landscape, looking for… well, actually I’m not sure what I was meant to be looking for. I got bored and gave up, because it turns out that one watercoloury blob looks a lot like another, and I couldn’t distinguish what I was picking up from what was shooting me. And something was shooting me, presumably, because I died.

I wanted to like Love, I really did, but games like this are the very essence of frustration. I play games to have fun, and while I enjoyed running around looking at clouds for a while I wouldn’t say I was having fun. It’s an excellent prototype for something that needs a lot of work still (as I think the developer, Eskil, would admit; he’s closing down Love to work on new projects) – I just hope he spends some time looking at his next game with a non-dev head on. Games, even more than websites, need a disproportionate amount of UX attention to feel right, and to work right, so the user/player doesn’t have to spend their time struggling against the interface – or lack of.

 

Two vaguely similar (in that they’re MMOs) games spring to mind here: World of Warcraft and EVE Online. WoW was produced by Blizzard, who do an absolutely phenomenal job of polishing their games until they sparkle. From the second you start a character in WoW you’re treated like a valued customer, wafted along on clouds of tool-tips and hand-holding missions from friendly NPCs.

EVE, on the other hand, is brutal. You’re basically given a spaceship and told to go away before being flung into a world of sociopaths and spreadsheets where you can easily lose thousands of hours of progress in a few seconds. Tiny text and obscure icons make everything difficult; the UI is almost as merciless as the other players.

The difference between the two is huge, and consciously or not, both interfaces reflect the spirit of the games behind them. World of Warcraft, despite how it sounds, is a friendly place where you’re as likely to be picking flowers or buying a pet parrot as you are to be a-slaying. EVE hates you and wants you to die.

Love… is what it is. It annoyed the hell out of me, but it’s also a beautiful game with stacks of potential. I’m keen to see what Eskil does next.