Incentive Architecture 1224362486736986 8


Published on

Weaving academic study with practical experience to present ideas on how to create sticky online experiences

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Incentive Architecture 1224362486736986 8

    1. 1. Incentive Architecture <ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Marianne Sweeny </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>TechNet/Servers Web Team </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>April 29, 2004 </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>Agenda </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Information Behavior Models </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emerging Trends in information architecture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Search </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Where we are now </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Where we could be? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>incentive Architecture “.. [is a ] unifying coherent structure that motivates users by taking advantage of persuasive tactics that will make them take action to help them make the right decisions” </li></ul>
    3. 3. Information Seeking Model <ul><li>Dervin’s Sensemaking </li></ul><ul><li>Users strive to make sense of reality as they move through situations, time, and space </li></ul><ul><li>Users encounter gaps in their knowledge and see these as barriers </li></ul><ul><li>Users seek to “bridge” the gap and reach their goal (a reality that again makes sense) </li></ul><ul><li>Information is what bridges the gap (provides answers, advice, help, etc) </li></ul><ul><li>Users deploy various strategies to build the bridge over the gaps </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ask friends or co-workers (#1 information resource) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Go to other resources (print, Web, experts) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Information Seeking Model <ul><li>Bates’ Berrypicking </li></ul><ul><li>A typical search evolves as information is gathered in bits and pieces along the way </li></ul><ul><li>Query – document – thought – revision – extension/revision – requery – document…and so on </li></ul><ul><li>Searchers use a variety of techniques and resources </li></ul><ul><li>Sometimes they want more </li></ul>
    5. 5. So, What’s the Difference Between Browsing and Searching? <ul><li>Browsing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Views pages one at a time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Navigates sequentially through hyperlinks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Self-guided through site space and dependent on “browsing cues” [information scent] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Iterative depending on information found along the way </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Searching </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Initiated by entering a search query and viewing a list of ranked results </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Specifics driven </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Results deprived of context </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Includes irrelevant results due from machine intervention </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User has to know the taxonomy to be successful </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. What our own CuSat Tells Us <ul><li>Finding things on our site is a problem for many of our users </li></ul><ul><ul><li>June 1999: 40% cannot find what they are looking for 50% of the time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>June 2001: Devs 54% / ITPros 54% cannot find what they are looking for 50% of the time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SQL Server (FY01Q4): 44% cannot find what they are looking for 50% of the time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>August 2001 (CuSat Grand Report ): 44% cannot find what they are looking for 50% of the time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>April 2002 (ProdCom Functionality FY02Q4): Ability to find information = 31% vsat / 21% dsat </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>April 2002 (CuSat SQL Server): Ability to find information = 29% vsat / 19% dsat </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>July-Dec 2003 (CDDG Online CuSat): Frequency of finding information = 26% always / 18% seldom ; satisfaction with ability to find information 31% vsat / 19% dsat </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>March 2004 (TechNET Web visitor profiling): Found everything = 46%, Found something = 31%, Found nothing = 25% </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Emerging Trends in Information Architecture <ul><li>Mental Models </li></ul><ul><li>Page Paradigm </li></ul><ul><li>Information Scent </li></ul><ul><li>Transitional Volatility </li></ul><ul><li>Effective View Navigation </li></ul><ul><li>Captology </li></ul>
    8. 8. Mental Models <ul><li>Made famous most recently by Don Norman </li></ul><ul><li>People form mental models of themselves how the world around them, and the things, in it work </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Incomplete </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Unstable </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Without firm boundaries </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Unscientific </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Parsimonious </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Our users bring their peculiar mental model of how our sites work with them when they visit </li></ul>
    9. 9. Page Paradigm <ul><li>Every user comes to a Web site with a goal in mind </li></ul><ul><li>On any given Web page the user will </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Click something that appears to take them closer to their goal </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Click the BACK button </li></ul></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Information Scent <ul><li>Remote indications of target content in the form of out-links throughout the information structure </li></ul><ul><li>Users forage for content on our sites </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use hyperlinks as proximal cues for distal content </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Information Scent is a subjective assessment of the user </li></ul><ul><li>User’s actions towards their goal is informed and influenced by information scent </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How to Buy has a strong scent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SQL Server’s inoperability with Windows Server 2003 has a weak scent </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Transitional Volatility <ul><li>Occurs in any page to page transition </li></ul><ul><li>Users are looking for “something” on the site and are often unable to “predict” the most direct path to success </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Navigational competition (left navigation, right navigation, embedded links, stand alone links, etc.) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Navigational overload = navigational mechanisms compete instead of coordinate with other mechanisms </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Habituate --- Reorient --- Predict </li></ul><ul><li>Local view navigation provides the optimal user experience (showing only the present directory in detail) </li></ul>
    12. 12. Effective View Navigation <ul><li>Navigational view is small and user short of time </li></ul><ul><li>Paths through navigation should be short </li></ul><ul><li>“ Where to go next” is central to user’s concern </li></ul><ul><li>Navigability requires an interlocking Web of set representation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Conceptual perception so that the navigator can decode mirroring and form an actual perception of the information set </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Similarity-based Navigation </li></ul><ul><li>Large-scale semantics dominate </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More stress on granular labels </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Effective View and Transitional Volatility in Practice on Oracle
    14. 14. Captology <ul><li>Study of the persuasive nature of technology </li></ul><ul><li>How can Web sites change what people believe and what they do </li></ul><ul><li>Types of Web site credibility </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Presumed </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reputed </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Surface </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Earned </li></ul></ul></ul>
    15. 15. So, What Do We Know So Far? <ul><li>Users come to us with a goal which is usually to get help bridging an information gap in their sensemaking model of the world </li></ul><ul><li>Along the way to collecting information to help them bridge this gap , they find other bits of information which may cause them to revise their original quest </li></ul><ul><li>Users come to our sites with a preconceived mental image of how the site is laid out and functions </li></ul><ul><li>Users tend to ignore all navigational aids to focus on the body content where they either find what they are looking for or a pointer or they hit the BACK button </li></ul><ul><li>Users follow a “scent” for the information that they desire </li></ul><ul><li>Users have a small frame (fisheye lens) through which they navigate and little time </li></ul><ul><li>Page to page transitions introduce transitional volatility which is not always bad – local navigation views, working in collaboration with other navigational mechanism, provides the user with a sense of location (not lost-ness) and that the site has more content </li></ul><ul><li>Web sites have “ credibility ” which can be used to persuade the user to take certain action or change the user’s belief about something </li></ul>
    16. 16. Search <ul><li>Enterprise vs. Web Search </li></ul><ul><li>SharePoint Portal Server </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Up the road a piece” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Not GPS </li></ul>
    17. 17. Architecture or Information Architecture <ul><li>The way Clients are looking to the future requires that we should study our client’s situation more than we have ever done before. If we are to succeed, we must learn a great deal about how clients are organized and what strategies underlie their way of doing business” </li></ul><ul><li>Lorraine Johnson </li></ul><ul><li>Swinburne University of Technology </li></ul><ul><li>School of Information Technology </li></ul><ul><li>Hawthorne, Australia </li></ul>
    18. 18. Where Are We Now <ul><li>Customer Verbatim </li></ul><ul><li>Since the adoption of the Product Lifecycle navigation across the Product sites, we’ve segmented and developed personas for our audience – do they map to each other? </li></ul><ul><li>What is the identity of the Product Sites? </li></ul>
    19. 19. What About Our Sites? SQL Server Product Site Today
    20. 20. But Wait, There’s More
    21. 21. And Still More…
    22. 22. Where We Could Be <ul><li>Competitor Analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Oracle </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IBM </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A proposed IA for the Product sites utilizing concepts recently discussed </li></ul>
    23. 23. Persuasive Architecture in Practice
    24. 24. Persuasive Architecture in Practice
    25. 25. SQL Server Maybe Later?
    26. 27. Resources Used for This Presentation <ul><li>ASIST Special Interest Group: Information Architecture Mail Archives </li></ul><ul><li>Searching Versus Finding: Why Systems Need Knowledge to Find What you really Want; Woods, W.A.; Sun Microsystems; ; April 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>Guiding Users with Persuasive Design; Perfetti, Christine; User Interface; ; March 2003 </li></ul><ul><li>Business Centered Design; Olsen, Henrik; Interaction Designer’s Coffee Break; ; January 2003 </li></ul><ul><li>Seductive Design for Web sites; Scanlon, Tara; User Interface; ; July 1999 </li></ul><ul><li>Persuasive Navigation; Lash, Jeff; Digital Web Magazine; ; December 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>Understanding the Seductive Experience; Khaslavsky, Julie, Shedroff, Nathan; Communications of the ACM; May 1999 </li></ul><ul><li>Transitional Volatility in Web Behavior; Danielson, David; ; June 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>Transitional Volatility in Web Behavior; Danielson, David; IT & Society; vol.1, issue 3, Winter 2003; </li></ul><ul><li>From the mind’s eye of the user: The Sense-Making qualitative-quantitative methodology; Dervin, Brenda; </li></ul><ul><li>In J. D. Glazier & R. R. Powell (Eds.), Qualitative research in information management (pp. 61-84). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Reprinted in: B. Dervin & L. Foreman-Wernet (with E. Lauterbach) (Eds.). (2003). Sense-Making Methodology reader: Selected writings of Brenda Dervin (pp. 269-292). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. (1992) </li></ul>
    27. 28. Resources Used for the Presentation <ul><li>The Design of Browsing and Berrypicking Techniques for the Online Search Interface; Bates, Marcia; ; 1989 </li></ul><ul><li>Incorporating Navigation Research into a Design Method; Lombardi, Victor; ASIST IA Summit 2004; </li></ul><ul><li>Conceptual Links Trump Hyperlinks; Patch, Kimberly; TRN; July 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>The Page Paradigm; Hurst, Mark;; ; February 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>Scent Trails; Olston, Chris, Chi, Ed; Carnegie Mellon; ; 2001 </li></ul><ul><li>Effective View Navigation; Furnas, George; School of Information, University of Michigan; ; March 1997 </li></ul><ul><li>Navigation in Electronic Worlds; Jul, Susanne, Furnas, George; Navigation 1997 Workshop; </li></ul>