Happiness machines
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Happiness machines

on

  • 2,711 views

My presentation at WebVisions Portland in May 2012. Speaker notes / narrative included! Please forgive the cues & odd little notes to myself for presenting purposes.

My presentation at WebVisions Portland in May 2012. Speaker notes / narrative included! Please forgive the cues & odd little notes to myself for presenting purposes.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,711
Views on SlideShare
2,616
Embed Views
95

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
6
Comments
0

5 Embeds 95

http://understandinggroup.com 89
http://dev.understandinggroup.com 2
http://alpha.oopgo.com 2
https://si0.twimg.com 1
https://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Happiness machines Happiness machines Document Transcript

    • HAPPINESS MACHINES WebVisions Portland | 2012 Andrew Hinton The Understanding Group @inkblurt @undrstndngClick to start clock!!!
    • HAPPINESS MACHINES WebVisions Portland | 2012 Andrew Hinton The Understanding Group @inkblurt @undrstndngIntro .... quickly.
    • This is a presentation about questions. (Let me know if you have any answers?)@inkblurt
    • Coke’s “Happiness Machine” @inkblurtCoke’s “Happiness Machine” video. Viewable here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqT_dPApj9U
    • 4 million + views on YouTube @inkblurtThat video was highly successful as a narrative for a brand. It made the rounds everywhere. Iteven got a lot of play at the financial services company where I was working.People saw it and thought: I want to make my customers that happy!But recently I found myself wondering just how effective that video really is, when faced with thereality of the experience.So I made my own little movie. ...
    • @inkblurtmovie plays - see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=runvBNxIYBoI try to buy a drink from a coke machine; it doesn’t take my money, and then when it does Idiscover it is out of the drink I wanted (doesn’t let me know this until I put my money in); I try anew machine, also out of the drink.Finally get a different drink, then when I open it, because it dropped to the bottom of themachine, it spews froth everywhere and makes a mess.
    • Expectations Reality vs gekko-image.com unicorns.com @inkblurtSo, what went wrong here?It seems to me that an expectation was set -- a brand story was told about a product.The product is fine ... but the way the product got delivered ... the whole experience ... cast ashadow on the product itself.Did the machinery meet its requirements, technically?Yeah! It took my money, it delivered a soft drink. Everything worked.But in some fundamental way, it missed the mark.It’s like I was promised a unicorn, but got dropped in a dirty stable. Technically there was a four-legged animal there, but it’s not the magical experience I was expecting.
    • @inkblurtSo, obviously I’m not here to talk about vending machines. But in a way I am. Because software ismachinery -- it’s just made of code rather than hardware.Just like hardware, it’s something we make that we then want to interact with us, help us, eventake care of us.And we have many of the same problems with it.But unlike vending machines, which have been used by the general public for at least a couple ofgenerations, software used to be much more rare.
    • REST OF LIFE OTHER WORK TASKS ONE WORK TASK @inkblurtThe software was often geared around just one specialized task, and it was only one thing duringa given day that someone would have to work with.Just imagine -- a time when so few people actually worked with software, and only did so for partof their jobs.
    • REST OF LIFE OTHER WORK TASKS ONE WORK TASK @inkblurtIt didn’t take very long before the personal computer revolution came to the enterprise.Then we had to learn things like word processors and spreadsheet software.There would often be special training for these as well -- and we spent more time using theseprograms.But that was still about it -- a few people had computers at home, but would usually only spendlimited time with them, again doing only a few tasks, like writing a letter or balancing acheckbook.
    • REST OF LIFE OTHER WORK TASKS ONE WORK TASK @inkblurtTurned into one where we’re all suddenly covered up with software and technological devices.Each one of which requires that we learn how to use it just to get everyday things done.
    • Every product, service & organization... ORG SERVICE PRODUCT ... is wrapped in software. @inkblurtNot only that -- but now everything a company tries to do has to be wrapped up in software insome way, whether a web site (or web-based application) or a mobile app, or some other digitalinteractive layer.
    • So now we need to make software ‣ anybody can use ‣ and want to use ‣ without pay, and ‣ without training. This was/is the catalyst for UX. @inkblurtSo just to be clear -- we went, in about 15 years, from being in a world where most people whoused software did so only because they had to for their jobs, and were trained to do so,to being in a world where the stakes are much higher.Namely, our livelihoods and businesses depend on making a digital layer that anyone can use --and ideally something they *want* to use -- even though we’re not paying them, and we’re nottraining them.>> This was the catalyst for user-experience design and the practices most associated with it.
    • UX TO THE RESCUE!!! ....Right? @inkblurtSo the user experience practices are poised to assemble and save the day.Kicking bad-guy butt & taking names. Right?
    • Do we really make things thatmuch better? Totally swiped from Peter Merholz’s presentation from yesterday.@inkblurt
    • THREE QUESTIONSAre we ...1. working well with (and within) organizations making stuff?2. really understanding user behavior?3. fundamentally solving the right problems? @inkblurt
    • THREE QUESTIONSAre we ...1. working well with (and within) organizations making stuff?2. really understanding user behavior?3. fundamentally solving the right problems? @inkblurt
    • A Meeting Between People Who are Part of an Organization This is This is Sal Hawkeye the cook for ‣ Chief Surgeon ‣ Recently given charge of mess hall M*A*S*H unit ‣ Has a favorite family recipe for 4077 french toast @inkblurtThis is a scene from MASH, the TV show.We have Sal, who is the gruff cook for the unit.And we have Hawkeye, the idealist chief surgeon, who was recently given charge of the mess halland has grand plans for making breakfast delightful for the troops -- a family recipe for frenchtoast.
    • @inkblurtmovie ... (Sorry no link: YouTube took this clip down after I uploaded it :( )
    • Whose side are you on? Why?@inkblurt
    • Disconnections ... Hawkeye • Wants what’s best for the “users.” • Passionate about a vision of excellence. • A fish out of water. Sal • Cooking for a war zone, not a restaurant. • Is already in middle of preparing the meal. • Doesn’t have time or resources to engage Hawkeye’s “best practices.” @inkblurtI have to confess I was on Hawkeye’s side when I first saw this. I mean, he’s obviously the protagonist here, and how canyou not identify with his idealism?>> He just wants what’s best for the users of the mess tent; he’s excited, passionate about a vision of excellence; andhe’s kind of a fish out of water -- an idealist doctor placed in a somewhat alien situation, trying to get these thick-headed people to understand how great things could be if only they would listen.But the more I thought about it, I had to start understanding things from Sal’s point of view.>> He’s cooking in a war zone, not a cafe -- the business model of this establishment is winning battles, not Michelinstars.He’s already in the middle of preparing the meal, for goodness’ sake ... how is he supposed to suddenly change hisprocess to meet this guy’s demands?And even though Hawkeye might have some great ideas ... some wonderful innovations ... there’s no time or budget tomake the happen.The problem here isn’t that Hawkeye isn’t dedicated or that Sal isn’t interested in making people happy -- it’s a bigger,systemic issue.
    • Disconnections ... Focused on the “Users” and the “Design” Focused on Delivery Who is designing and meeting the engagement? Requirements @inkblurtI have to confess I was on Hawkeye’s side when I first saw this. I mean, he’s obviously the protagonist here, and how canyou not identify with his idealism?>> He just wants what’s best for the users of the mess tent; he’s excited, passionate about a vision of excellence; andhe’s kind of a fish out of water -- an idealist doctor placed in a somewhat alien situation, trying to get these thick-headed people to understand how great things could be if only they would listen.But the more I thought about it, I had to start understanding things from Sal’s point of view.>> He’s cooking in a war zone, not a cafe -- the business model of this establishment is winning battles, not Michelinstars.He’s already in the middle of preparing the meal, for goodness’ sake ... how is he supposed to suddenly change hisprocess to meet this guy’s demands?And even though Hawkeye might have some great ideas ... some wonderful innovations ... there’s no time or budget tomake the happen.The problem here isn’t that Hawkeye isn’t dedicated or that Sal isn’t interested in making people happy -- it’s a bigger,systemic issue.
    • Holistic View of Client/Employer Organization Holistic View of User UX Focus @inkblurtWe tend to focus almost exclusively on the view of the user.But what about the organization we’re working in or for?
    • Holistic View of Client/Employer Organization UX Focus Holistic View of User @inkblurtSeems to me we have to broaden our scope. Some of us have already been doing this for years, but it’s always feltperipheral, like something we’re doing on the sly.Why don’t we bake this in as an official part of what user experience design is about?
    • THREE QUESTIONS Are we ... 1. working well with (and within) organizations making stuff? 2. really understanding user behavior? 3. fundamentally solving the right problems? @inkblurtAnother question -- do we really understand user behavior?
    • Fightin’ Words!! Oh really? You Give an example or STFU. Ok. What about “Goals”? Me@inkblurt
    • GOAL! @inkblurthttp://www.flickr.com/photos/epmallory3/6275268676/The idea of a “goal” is a pretty specific concept -- it’s a defined, named object that we aim for.In a goal-based sport, before everyone even gets on the field, they know what the goal is.I contend that invoking the word “goal” comes with a lot of assumptions and baggage that can misdirect our work as designers.
    • @inkblurtThere’s a deep assumption in our profession’s cultural background that our users have explicitly, consciously articulated goalsthat they’re working toward.There’s been a progression of landmark works in the profession that organize design around user goals.Now, I’m not saying these and other works that talk about goals are bad, they’re really excellent resources.I bring them up to highlight the fact that the “goal” concept is central to a lot of high-profile methods and education in ourcommunity.
    • http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/ Training Procedure Goal (Pre-Defined Result) A.Do this B.Do that C.Do this http://www.flickr.com/photos/pearluvr http://www.flickr.com/photos/foenix @inkblurtIt’s understandable that we would inherit this idea of user goals, given the origins of the computer-human interaction discipline.For a very long time, users worked in closed situations, where the whole system was constructed around pre-defined goals, andusers were trained in procedures -- not unlike following a recipe to bake a cake.
    • People Process Technology @inkblurtThis venn diagram is in a million IT presentations and conference rooms.It’s like the Holy Trinity of IT.And who could disagree that these three things are both important and interdependent? It’s like saying water is wet.But if you think about it, there’s a lot of stuff buried in those terms, especially that word “Process”
    • toolbox.com http://www.bai.berkeley.edu/ Technology People @inkblurtThe way we often go about mapping human behavior is the same way we go about mapping system behavior. Namely: a linear,highly rational, super-efficient process.I’ve seen a lot of “customer journey” maps treat people the same way -- lots of happy paths, with very little room for people’scomplexities, messiness and irrationality.
    • BEHAVIOR IS ORGANIC @inkblurtBut people don’t actually work that way -- they don’t behave like machines.And now that we’re making software more often for more complex situations, for more peoplewho aren’t being paid to use it, and who have other options to turn to, we have to come to gripswith the fact that people need software that helps them in the messy complexity, rather thansoftware that assumes your life is very tidy, linear and planned.
    • “New Brain” “Mid-Brain” “Old Brain” from Neuro Web Design, S. Weinschenk, 2009; p 3 Amygdala @inkblurtIn the last 20-30 years science has almost completely changed its mind about how our brains work and how we make decisions.And we now know that most of our actions are actually driven by the ancient parts of our evolved brain.We live in a frontal-lobe-driven illusion that we actually have defined goals, when we rarely actually do.
    • Jonah LehrerPaul Dourish Marcia Bates Dan Ariely @inkblurt Lucy SuchmanThere’s been a lot of work both academic and in the popular press that has been teaching us these new lessons about humanbehavior. Here are just some of them.Paul Dourish has been re-thinking context for years;I just learned about the Lucy Suchman book yesterday and now wish I’d read it years ago,and of course there’s Ariely & Lehrer have been writing very accessible books about how we really decide and behave.
    • THINKING cognitive assumptions, education, learning ability Cognitive DOING Physical physical activity & ability, habits, preferences, sensory Emotional FEELING psychological state, anxiety, confidence, stress, desire @inkblurtA big part of user experience design is based on understanding the whole person for whom we’re creating a system.Rather than starting with “People, Process, Technology” all at once --We start with People , their physical, cognitive and emotional characteristics, then we figure out how process and technologyshould meet their needs.
    • Task Task Need Goal Cognitive Task Physical Situation Task Need Emotional Need Task Task Task Task @inkblurtSo if we really want to apply these lessons, we may want to re-think the focus on tasks and goals.In UX design we like to think we’re considering all the dimensions of the person, and often we really do ... but we still tend tofocus on tasks and goals.>> More often than not, the goal is only a fuzzy, distant possibility in the future ... and what we now know is that even if youthink you have a goal, it will likely shift and change as you find your way to it.>> ... because right now the user is just trying to muddle their way through a situation that’s emerged in their life. When you getup to check the fridge, you rarely say to yourself “Self, I am hungry and therefore I need to eat” ... Your hunger may not even be afully self-aware state just yet.>> at some point you may figure out that you have a particular need, and it may actually be one of many needs that spawn fromthe situation you’re in ...So, “I’m hungry” leads to “I NEED to eat something” ... and also, possibly “I NEED to get food because I don’t have any at homeright now” ... or even “I NEED to ask the person next to me if they’re hungry too so I won’t be rude”.>> Only then does someone start to formulate the basic outlines of actual tasks to take care of those needs. And all of thishappens in a sort of blur, before you have fully rationalized what you’re doing.So tell me ... How many requirements documents do you read that see the user this way?Or better yet, how many Agile user stories have you read that acknowledge the situational origin of the user’s activity?In waterfall or agile, or even in user testing, we normally jump straight to the task and small-bore functionality -- we break thetasks up into silos, assuming they’ll magically make sense together when we launch a product.
    • Google Buzz Situatio Need Task n Situation Situation Need Situation Need Need Situation MacObserve @inkblurtWant some real-world proof of my point?When Google designed Buzz, they used an “eat your own dogfood” approach -- testing it with wider and wider circles of GoogleEmployees.They designed lots of intricate tasks, but they were addressing the specific behaviors of people within Google -- not outsidefriends or family.>> When it was unleashed to the world, there was a huge clash ... the context was completely different, and the designed taskshad repercussions Google simply hadn’t foreseen ... because they were invisible to them.>> The result? Buzz was shuttered, and it earned Google 20 years of monitoring from the Federal Trade Commission.(ref: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10454683-265.html)
    • Early Adopters ... ± 75 - 80% Male ± 60% Software Engineers & Developers So much fun to create entity-relationship diagrams of everyone you know! @inkblurtDid Google learn its lesson about user context & behavior?Well Google Plus has some improvements in terms of privacy,but its early adopters leaned heavily toward software engineers who evidently ENJOY organizing everyone they know into anentity-relationship diagram.http://mashable.com/2011/07/14/google-plus-male/
    • THREE QUESTIONSAre we ...1. working well with (and within) organizations making stuff?2. really understanding user behavior?3. fundamentally solving the right problems? @inkblurt
    • What if it’s impossible to map everything out anymore? @inkblurtWhat if we just can’t map everything out?Mapping stuff has always been big with user experience folks ... now we have service design and cross-channel customerjourney maps and such.These are useful tools, but how well do they really scale for the world that’s coming at us so fast?And do the maps lock us into ways of thinking about the problem that keep us from seeing other possibilities?
    • Every use case mapped out for an artificial brain. Supposedly made in our image. ASIMO@inkblurt
    • Can’t handle all the possible edge cases.@inkblurt
    • Use cases not mapped out. The architecture of the body does most of the “thinking.” (The “brain” mainly manages sensors.) “Big Dog”@inkblurt
    • You can’t even kick this thing over.@inkblurt
    • We seem to want our machines ... ... to love us. @inkblurtI think we want machines that will love us. We see faces in clouds, and we want to see them in our software.What if we’re trying too hard to make everything so human, we end up making stuff that will always disappoint us?
    • What if we really don’t need machines to love us... ...but just to fit us? @inkblurtWhat if what we really need is things that just FIT us?I suspect we’re going to eventually find out that software works best when we think of it as an extension of ourselves forconnecting with the world, and connecting with others in the world, rather than an automated version of us.I wonder what would happen if we framed more of our work that way? Would we have more success?
    • Thank You.@inkblurt
    • @inkblurt