1. user experience agency

2. Design
Applying
neuroscience
in
web
design:
part
I

3. Neuroscience

4. The
study
of
the
nervous
system,
advancing
the
understanding
of
HUMAN
…..
THOUGHT
………………
EMOTION
………………..
BEHAVIOUR.
Neuroscience
–
explained

5. Living
in
a
perfect
world

6. • In
a
perfect
world,
everything
would
be
perfect
• Users
would
interpret
designs
and
architecture
as
perfectly
as
intended
• Decisions
by
Users
would
be
based
on
whats
most
important,
with
common
sense,
as
opposed
to
what’s
easiest.
Thinking
in
a
perfect
world

7. • Users
don’t
always
make
the
decisions
we
want
or
expect
• WHY?
Because
they
have
400+
MORE
important
decisions
to
make
daily.
We
have
less
of
our
Users
Rme
and
aSenRon
when
it
comes
to
decision
making
–
so
we
have
to
understand
HOW
and
WHY
decisions
are
made.
Time
for
informed
decisions?

8. Neuroscience

9. Control
–
the
dream
of
the
good
and
bad.
• Designing
for
control
is
what
we
UX
people
do.
Control
over
what
our
Users
do
• Human
behaviour
is
centred
around
a
need
to
control
• The
21st
century
digital
age
has
seen
a
shiX
of
power
from
insRtuRons
to
Users,
the
consumer
• We
need
to
“learn
to
design
for
a
loss
of
control,”
JP
Rangaswari.
Control

10. • Neuroscience
is
the
key
to
designing
for
a
loss
of
control
• Its
not
enough
to
test
our
Users
conscious
self
(focus
groups,
lab
tesRng)
…
we
need
to
go
further
and
discover
what’s
behind
subconscious
decision
making.
Designing
for
a
loss
of
control

11. “Let
go
your
conscious
self,
act
on
ins:nct.”
Work
like
a
jedi

12. Our
brain
controls
US

13. • We
start
to
design
for
a
loss
of
control
by
applying
neuroscience
thinking
to
the
design
process
• By
designing
for
HOW
the
brain
works
we
recognise
that
we
cant
control
our
brain
–
IT
controls
us.
How
you
approach
design
problems

14. • Too
oXen
we
design
for
a
problem
we
already
know
• Let
go
of
this
conscious
problem,
what
we
are
ALREADY
aware
of
• Open
your
design
approach
to
addressing
the
3
fundamental
layers
of
the
brain
-­‐ InsRnct
-­‐ Feeling
-­‐ Thinking.
InsRnct,
feeling,
thinking

15. Design
Gap
logo
redesign
–
case
study

16. • In
2010
Gap
aSempted
a
relaunch
of
their
iconic
brand
idenRty
• The
new
logo
was
met
with
massive
criRcism
from
both
consumers,
markeRng
/
brand
people
and
the
design
community
• Its
a
great
case
study
for
the
applicaRon
of
neuroscience
in
design.
Gap
logo
redesign

17. • NeuroFocus,
US
neuromarkeRng
agency,
used
a
mix
of
neurological
tesRng
methods
to
discover
why
the
new
Gap
logo
failed
• Methods
used
included
–
-­‐ EEG
based
brainwave
acRvity
-­‐ Eye
tracking.
TesRng
of
Gap
logo

18. • Results
stated
that
the
logo
violated
SIX
core
principal
Neurological
best
pracRces
…………….
-­‐ Overlays
Equal
Overlooked
-­‐ Sharp
Edges
UnseSle
the
Subconscious
-­‐ InteresRng
Fonts
Work
-­‐ High/Low
Contrast
-­‐ Stronger
SemanRc
Content
-­‐ Lost
Legacy.
Visit
hSp://www.zabisco.com/blog/applying-­‐neuroscience-­‐in-­‐web-­‐design-­‐part-­‐i/
for
a
detailed
breakdown
of
the
above
Test
of
Gap
logo
-­‐
results

19. • Using
the
Gap
case
study
as
a
example
Dr
A.K
Pradeep
raises
two
vital
quesRons
when
undertaking
design
projects
–
-­‐ Does
the
new
design
violate
any
Neurological
best
pracRce?
-­‐ Does
the
design
build
upon
exisRng
brand
aSributes
that
are
idenRfied
through
the
Brand
Essence
Framework?
Lessons
to
be
learnt

20. Thanks
Marcus Marritt
marcus@zabisco.com
0203 1511 330