« May 2005 | Main | September 2005 »
August 23, 2005
Ease of use as a brand
Partnership issues seem to abound at work these days. Not the type of partnership related to getting along with coworkers, but the type of partnership related to getting along with other companies that want to work with us. I have always thought of my approach to partnership as pragmatic; certainly I am realistic enough to know that given the sensitive issues surrounding corporate partnerships, user experience (UX) will not always "win" in a given discussion all the time.
Where I'm struggling, however, is the point at which UX should "trump" business needs and vice versa. There are times when UX running the show and left unchecked, is a bad thing. There are also times that doing something solely for the benefit of the bottom line is not good, either.
Branding also enters into the mix in my thinking. We've been spending a lot of money on branding, and certainly a corporate logo - the most obvious form of branding - is sacred. In a partnership agreement, a partner would never insist that a logo be removed. In that same agreement, however, design of screen elements is fair game. Why? Can't ease of use, as implemented in a design, lead to branding? At that point, it should become as "sacred" as a logo.
I was thinking about Coca-Cola today. As the most recognized brand in the world, it takes very little to get consumers thinking about Coke when they see elements of that brand scheme. Suppose, for a moment, a company wanted to partner with Coke for something. They would co-produce a product that would include both logos. You would immediately recognize it as being "part of Coke". But what if the partner wanted to put the Coke product in a Gatorade bottle? Or a milk carton? I don't think for a moment that would fly, because I can see a bottle discarded by the side of the road and know instantly it's a Coke bottle. My point is that even the container represents the brand.
So back to the web world now. Consider a partnership arrangement wherein the partner wants to rearrange screen elements that we have carefully crafted in an effort to create consistency in our brand. What wins? Let's toss navigation into this mix. Suppose a partner wants to put our content on their site. What if we are putting the partner's content on our site? Does that change the outcomes at all? In what direction?
Here are my thoughts. Each company has a niche. We do what we do well, and our partner does what they do well. We also have niche users. They are used to our site, and because of our work in the interface consistency realm, they have that comfortable, familiar experience no matter where they are on the site. We can put just about any type of new content in front of them, and they can use it effortlessly because the experience is familiar and flows from one portion of the site to the next.
While the user is wrapped up in this seamless, comfortable, familiar experience, we're building credibility and trust. They may not be thinking it, but somewhere the thought "I *know* what is happening on this site" is registering deep in their brains. As a result, when we do ask them to do something a bit out of the ordinary, they're more likely to go along with it. (If you want to learn more about this, pick up a copy of Persuasive Technology by BJ Fogg).
In any event,
Posted by Laurie at 9:34 PM | Comments (0)August 4, 2005
A sample design exercise for Graphic Artist job candidates
Download the sample design exercise here
Based on a discussion on the IA Institute list, I have posted the sample exercise I used during the search to find Chaz, our graphic artist.
We got burned with our initial graphic artist. She had a nice portfolio and spoke very well about the work she had done. But when we hired her and asked her to do work very much like our sample problem, it became tremendously obvious that she could not do it. I don't know if she had worked for an art director who had told her specifically what to implement, or was just so completely unfamiliar with the B2B universe, but it was clear that it was just not going to work out and we needed to let her go.
During the second round of searches, I created a sample problem for the candidates to complete around the time of their face-to-face interviews. We had already weeded out some candidates based on their phone interviews, so these were the folks who had good potential.
I worried about providing them with an activity that could be perceived as creating deliverables for free, and I was also sensitive to the fact that they all had their own full time jobs. I wanted something that would allow me to "get inside their heads" and not require them to produce comps.
I was spoiled at HCT because I got to work with Graphic Artists who understood the importance of design research and cross-disciplinary design efforts and I wanted to find that for this position at KnowledgeStorm. I was convinced that this person HAD to be out there somewhere. I just had to find him or her. This approach was the method I used.
I thought it worked well. The candidates reported that it was interesting, not too taxing, and was sort of fun. All completed it fairly quickly, and although speed of completion was not truly a factor in my decision, I did, in one instance weigh speed of completion against the thoroughness of the answer provided.
As a result, we found Chaz who has worked out so wonderfully. I'd use this method again in an instant to find additional team members.
Posted by Laurie at 5:38 PM | Comments (0)
