Assumptions & Failures
Reflection Point: Google Glass
Faulty assumptions lead to failure
This statement applies to all products, no matter how much potential they have or how cool they seem to be. Let’s take Google Glass for example. A product that aimed to merge our daily experiences with our technological devices in a more seamless way (hands-free, integrated with field of vision). They unquestionably were breaking new ground and introducing a first of a kind product. I believe that “first-of-a-kind” uncertainty created a huge challenge of understanding what assumptions they were really making and what the risk factors of those assumptions were. To their credit, they rolled out a “Glass Explorers” program to test the user experience. However this test would draw significant criticism that dealt a blow to it’s future adoption (as well as a few physical assaults of those wearing the device).
Two unknowns, that if identified early and tested pre-launch as high-risk assumptions, may have saved Google Glass the negative PR it received, as well as privacy laws that were in-acted because of it’s pre-emptive release. Yes, I realize how easy it is to pinpoint these in retrospect, but for others who intend to launch a first of a kind products might take heed and use Google Glass as an informative case study. If they had known the risk of these assumptions, they may have first sought to test those doing the testing, rather than the product itself.
How do non-users feel in the presence of the product?
Does it make them want to buy one and get in on the fun? Or are they worried they are being surveilled? What connotations come to mind? When it comes to UX, I think we naturally think about our target users, but we should also consider non-users that might be impacted by our products. While in reality, iPhones may pose the same surveillance risk, they are not so in your face (pun intended).
Unfortunately, I think these are the image that non-users may have been subconsciously reminded of:


Is the product safe in all conditions?
We are visual creatures, anything that interferes with our full unobstructed view of the world has the possibility of distracting us or blocking out dangers in our normal field of vision. As bad as the temptation of looking at our phones might be while driving, walking down the sidewalk, etc. — something attached to your eye is likely to be even a larger risk. It seems as if this was actually part of the purpose for the product — to integrate technology no matter what someone is doing. But just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should. Applications that are activity specific, such as use in medical techniques, military use, physical disabilities, or journalistic may become the better adopted uses for this product.



