Form vs. Function
Jony Ives and Steve Jobs single handedly introduced a generation of technologists to “design”. Abused adjectives such as “elegant” and “gorgeous” are applied to the vernacular of product launches ranging from vacuums to software.
Let’s dissect “design” for a moment. What does “design” mean to you? In anticipation of writing this piece I quickly asked four people what the word “design” meant to them. All four used words like “aesthetics,” “the way something looks,” and “appearance.” All are accurate, but incomplete.
Design requires form and function. We obsess over form. Whether it’s a style of jeans or the colors that complement our living room furniture, the vanity of form is a steady stream of conscious thought for most.
The “function” of design is “form’s” red headed stepsister. Nowhere is that more true than in the technology world. We produce software at a staggering frequency with little to no validation that the intended function satisfies the end user.
My frame of reference is the technology start-up world. As I lead the launch of a start-up called ChartSpan (patient healthcare technology) I am curiously frightened at the amount of time and money spent on launching start-up companies that have never tested the hypothesis of their solution with end-users prior to releasing their product.
Most start-ups are based on an innovative concept that is trying to solve some real world problem. The founders of those companies dance the Silicon Valley jig until someone agrees to fund their idea. Developers and marketers are hired, office space is rented and millions of dollars are invested to get the product out to the public.
90% of all start-ups fail. Why? Nobody wanted their product. Did millions of dollars need to be spent in order to find this out? No, not if intelligent design practices are followed. They usually aren’t.
We’re Wrong
ChartSpan was accepted into the Iron Yard Digital Healthcare Accelerator this summer. We showed up to the Accelerator on day one with our product and marketing strategy complete. We spent 15 months building our product. We looked forward to refinement, but the hard work was done. We were ready to launch.
A smart man named Peter Barth runs The Iron Yard. Unlike most who have had financial success in the entrepreneurial world, Peter is modest. He is astutely observant and connected. He lets you make mistakes and helps you get back up when you stumble.
Peter recognized my headstrong manner had led to the creation of a company and product that had never seen a moment of functional design validation. We obsessed over the user experience, but our design was based on logic derived from our own common sense assessments. Never did we test or validate with our intended audience.
To this day I view what happened next as the most important day in our company’s young life. Peter organized a private meeting with four User Interface and User Experience design experts. He went out of his way to organize the meeting, ensuring it was catered and attended by all.
The meeting was humbling. The four design experts trashed our experience and interface. They were kind, but forthright. It became clear, everything surrounding our design needed to be rethought. They also challenged us to stop assuming we knew what our users wanted. They pushed us to validate our assumptions.
We felt lost. I’ve overseen development projects for at least 25 of the Fortune 500. I thought I understood design. What I learned was that UX (user experience) must be separated from UI (user interface). UX should not be left in the hands of graphic artists and developers, or worse, the company founders. The software’s navigation, function and experience must be separated and elevated in importance.
Next, I searched for an experienced UX design professional. I found Mary Treat-Massey, a graduate of Clemson’s Human Factor design program. My co-founder David and I fondly refer to our experience with Mary as our “come to Jesus moment.”
Mary taught us the basics of UX design. She taught us how to create scenario tests. She taught us how to measure and evaluate user experience. She helped us redesign our entire product, based on what users told us they wanted and validated, not what we thought they wanted.
It turns out everything we thought our users wanted was completely wrong. Our redesign looks nothing like our original product. It has become remarkably simple. Menus have been simplified. Features have been added and stripped. The UX and UI are now “elegant” and “gorgeous” by virtue of being well thought out and functional rather than trying to force design on top of a bad interface. The whole experience has been made simpler and more intuitive by listening to how our end-users expect the process to work. The key word is “listening”; you have to be open and willing to accept the fact your assumptions are wrong. We were humbled, but in the end we came out the other side with a much more polished and well thought-out product.
On the eve of our launch, as I stand back and look at what we’ve created, I am proud. It’s no longer my product. It’s a product that has been 100% designed by a group of non-technical Mothers (our intended end-user.) The process has actually removed the uncertainty of wondering how the public will react when we release. We already know how they will react.
Jon-Michial Carter is the co-founder and CEO of ChartSpan Medical Technologies. ChartSpan is a healthcare data company providing patients technology to manage their healthcare records and information. Jon-Michial can be reached at JonMichial@ChartSpan.com
Email me when ChartSpan publishes or recommends stories