“Wallet. Phone. Keys.” This is the mantra that I recite every time I leave my house — my mental checklist before venturing into the outside world. Mobile has become an essential part of our daily lives so how do we ensure that the mobile experience is inclusive of all abilities?

WCAG 2.0 and beyond

WCAG 2.0 is the current gold standard when aiming for an accessible website. In our accessibility testing and auditing we have encountered a number of ways we feel WCAG 2.0 may not go far enough — for example, it is possible to create font size and colour contrast combinations that are technically compliant but which are utterly unreadable by most audiences. Nonetheless, WCAG 2.0 remains the one really great set of standards that most legislation relies on.

But what about all the non-web content and apps on our mobile devices — does WCAG 2.0 cover these? It turns out that it does, but again, we need to go further when we take our devices on the go.

• Adequate colour contrast is even more important in bright sunlight

• The effective use of audio and video are even more essential in noisy environments

• Helping people maintain task focus is even more challenging in a busy world of distractions

• Avoiding small font sizes and small touch targets are even more critical on small screens

“Overall, WCAG 2.0 is highly relevant to both web and non-web mobile content and applications.”

— W3C, Mobile Accessibility: How WCAG 2.0 and Other W3C/WAI Guidelines Apply to Mobile
https://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-accessibility-mapping/

Assistive technology (AT) and mobile

In some cases the assistive technology is built right into mobile devices. VoiceOver in iOS and TalkBack in Android are built-in screen readers that can be turned on in the system settings — no separate screen reader software is needed.

What may be more surprising to app designers and developers is that many people with disabilities use separate assistive hardware to support their needs with mobile devices — keyboards for text entry, specialized pointing devices for navigation and interaction, etc. Mobile experiences need to support assistive hardware just as much as laptops and desktops do. As with the mobile web, mobile devices and native apps need to support a wide range of assistive technology.

iOS vs Android accessibility

Both iOS and Android have accessibility features built in. How do they compare?

The accessibility features of iOS are mature; they have been baked in to the OS from the outset. Android, by contrast, has been trying to catch up incrementally with each new version and by some accounts they are succeeding. But the problem, as ever with Android, is that the newest versions of Android and their improved accessibility features are only available on the newest devices.

• VoiceOver (iOS) and TalkBack (Android) are built-in screen readers with comparable functionality. The gestures for each are unique which means switching between them is challenging. The longer history and greater familiarity with VoiceOver may be a factor in the loyalty to IOS that we have observed with participants in our accessibility testing.
• There are many more accessible apps in the Apple app store than for Android. The long term stability of iOS built-in accessibility features means there is a longer history of making accessible iOS apps and making accessible apps is easier and more robust than on Android.
• All of the default installed iOS apps are accessible. This has not been the case with Android, especially with Chrome, which has been very problematic over the years.
• To the amazement of people without vision impairments, many people with low vision prefer to use their mobile device with the screen turned off. This feature is available with a shortcut in iOS. On Android, this can be added with a third party enhancement called “Shades”.
• Android is much more customizable than iOS. One way this has proved beneficial is that it allows people to customize their home screen to better suit their specific abilities.

Any comparison of iOS and Android will have defenders of each but to date, all participants in our accessibility testing on mobile have all been iOS users.

Mobile accessibility legislation

Accessibility legislation around the globe is pushing organizations toward WCAG 2.0 compliance with their web content. The U.S. Department of Transportation, for example, requires airlines that fly within the U.S. to demonstrate that people with disabilities have equal access to services and information through the airline websites. (See A Web Accessibility Primer: Part 1 for more about accessibility legislation.)

What is less clear are the immediate implications for native apps. In the long term, all forms of discriminatory access can be expected to face regulatory prohibition so we feel it is prudent to support accessibility best practices in all mobile products and services.

Besides, it’s not just about the law. Accessibility benefits all of us.

References

• Access to Electronic and Information Technology Policy Statement
  https://www.transportation.gov/civil-rights/civil-rights-library/access-electronic-and-information-technology-policy-statement
• Android Accessibility Features
  https://support.google.com/accessibility/android/answer/6006564
• iOS Accessibility
  https://www.apple.com/accessibility/ios/
• Mobile Accessibility: How WCAG 2.0 and Other W3C/WAI Guidelines Apply to Mobile
  https://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-accessibility-mapping/

This post was originally published on the Usability Matters blog, and written by senior UX designer Steven LeMay.

User experience testing refers to the process of understanding what users do and why they do it. Good design makes it easier for users to find what they’re looking for easily and quickly and accomplish the tasks they set out to achieve.

In many instances, time and budget constraints either marginalize testing or eliminate it completely. And more often than not, it’s because usability testing is misunderstood or undervalued.

Let’s look at the nine myths about usability testing that have passed their best before date.

Myth No. 1: “We Just Don’t Have the Budget For Testing”

The reality: There is a broad range of options for testing. Lean budgets shouldn’t be an excuse to not learn how real users will interact with your product. With so many ways to approach usability testing, from formal lab-based testing facilities to your local café, there really isn’t an excuse.

Weinschenk, in her white paper Usability: A Business Case, outlines three useful equations for calculating cost savings related to errors, costs of development and maintenance, and productivity. Weinschenk easily demonstrates that avoiding usability testing isn’t a great idea.

The biggest tragedy is when failures are for the most part predictable and avoidable.

If product teams don’t catch omissions or issues until final testing –or worse, until after the product has been rolled out — the costs incurred to correct errors will likely be many times greater than if they’d caught the mistake while they were still working on the initial process.

Applying human factors in the initial design can greatly reduce extensive redesign, maintenance, and customer support, which can substantially eat away profits. According to Jakob Nielsen, online shoppers spend most of their time and money at Websites with the best usability.

“Improving user experience can increase both revenue and customer satisfaction while lowering costs.”

- Forrester

Myth No. 2: “This Will Take Too Much Time”

The reality: This assumption is common but does not stand up to scrutiny. When done well, usability testing doesn’t slow down the release process, it’s not too hard to do, and it provides valuable information about your product that you simply can’t get in other way. In fact, if usability testing is planned for up-front, going live can be smoother and faster.

Users are tired of dealing with confusing and unintuitive products that force them to either call customer service for help or find another product that is more usable. Consumers are finicky. Consider mobile users, notoriously impatient; if your app confuses them, they will probably move on to something else.

Usability testing provides specific insights, insights that stakeholders of an organization need. For example, senior executives want a condensed version, of “the problem” and to understand what is perceived as the differentiator or premium (for example) that this product offers. A Product Manager or the marketing team seek insights on segmentation, product identity, competitive information, participant reaction to feature sets. Product designers on the other hand want detailed usability feedback to guide enhancements to the product’s interface and behaviour.

Each of these stakeholders need to be given the necessary insights to guide the process. An experienced team keeps product and development teams moving quickly.

Myth No. 3: “You only talked to eight people, how valid can that be?”

The Reality: Even with low numbers, you can learn actionable takeaways from real users. You can ask the testers questions about their pain points, expectations and needs.

The truth is that the end result of usability testing is not statistical validity, but verification of insights and assumptions based on behavioural observation.

Usability testing is a qualitative approach that is driven by insights (why users don’t understand or why they are confused) over numbers. Qualitative research uses a different methodology and tactics than quantitative research, so it’s typical that sample sizes are low.

Jakob Nielson and Tom Landauer, show that “the maximum benefit-cost ratio is achieved when using between three and five subjects.” Turns out a small number of testers can result in accurate usability testing.

Myth No. 4: “Shouldn’t you know? You’re the experts”

The Reality: The UX Designer is not your user. The UX Designer does not represent cultural differences, differences in educational levels, prior knowledge of the technology or experience.

When a user interacts with your product, and it delivers the value you promised them in a positive way, then you’ve built a successfully usable product. It’s your UX Designer’s job to learn as much as possible about your users and to keep their experience consistent throughout all phases of your project.

This means your UX Designer needs to be involved in every step of the process from concept to execution to implementation.

Look at testing as an opportunity to engage with your target audience while enhancing your understanding of their needs.

What if you have an existing desktop app, it can be very hard to decide which features to prioritize on mobile. User tests can help you answer that question.

Myth No. 5: “We Think Testing Should Be Done At The End Of The Process.”

The Reality: Test early and test often is the UX designer’s mantra. Testing small portions of a site or items of functionality can be more effective than testing an entire product at once because issues can be pinpointed to specific components in the product. If testing is held off until the end of the design process, a lot of time might be spent going back to fix issues.

Many apps are opened once and then never touched again. You want to know if you have a problem before you ship. You need to know if you are providing features that users actually want, and have you made it easy to get them? User testing throughout the design process helps you learn how your users think and what motivates them.

If you test often, you have the benefit of validating the work you’ve just done. It will also guide what you do next and another bonus: you’ll have actionable feedback.

Myth No. 6: “We’d Like To Use Eye Tracking, We’ve Heard It’s Very Good”

The reality: The devices are expensive, but that’s beside the point. In truth, not every participant can work with an eye tracker. People with a variety of attributes automatically are disqualified from eye tracking. Everything from long eyelashes to contact lenses can become an issue.

Eye trackers take away valuable time to collect data from your users. Preparing the stations and calibrating the device for the user can take time away from valuable learning. Finally, the results are tricky to analyze. What are the outputs actually saying? When someone is gazing at something, is it because they want to look there? Or because the page somehow made them look there? Maybe the users spent more time gazing up and down the page because they couldn’t figure out the navigation.

Myth No. 7: “Without Quantitative Results, Your Results Aren’t Valid.”

The reality: At Usability Matters, we have found that while many research activities have the potential to contribute to the creation of useful and desirable products, the qualitative approach provides the most value to digital product design.

Put simply, the qualitative approach helps answer questions about the product at both the big-picture and functional-detail level with a relatively small amount of effort and expense. No other research technique can claim this.

Quantitative analysis has its place. Geo-demographic techniques can potentially forecast marketplace acceptance of products and services. Statistical information, such as metrics that outline possible correlations between variables can give you data points, but each of these tools provide limited value in assessing the viability of a product.

When you see several people being stumped by the same design element, if it’s frustrating users, change it or get rid of it.

It’s easy to get a quantitative study wrong and end up with misleading data. When you collect numbers instead of insights, everything must be exactly right, or you might as well not do the study.

Myth No. 8: “QA Testing Is A Substitute For Usability Testing”

QA is great at identifying technical implementation issues (e.g. system errors, incorrect calculations, etc.) and often issues with front-end design implementation (e.g. CSS misalignment, cross browser differences, etc.). But, QA tests do not focus on the quality of the user experience in regards to usability, affordances, findability, content clarity, or appropriate placements of items with the experience. Nor should it.

Myth No. 9: “Formal Testing Is The Only Way To Go”

The reality: There are many options available for Usability Testing. Each approach needs to be considered based on what you’re trying to achieve. Like all usability tests, you need to decide on your objectives.

When designing for the mass market, it’s easy enough to ask friendly looking strangers if they have a couple minutes to spare. Public spaces and shopping centers present some of the best places to do this, simply because of the sheer amount of foot traffic they receive as well the relaxed nature of the environment. With more specific user sets, however, it’s useful to target subjects based on their context.

Being open to different options may also help allay issues with budget.

In conclusion:

In a perfect world, our understanding of our users and how they work with our websites, our products, our apps, would mean conducting not only a lot more usability testing, but also more interviews, more ethnographic observation, more everything. In our actual world, though, tight budgets and schedules often mean cutting users out of the process, abandoning our empathy for them, and relying on “best-guess design.”

But it doesn’t have to be that way. Set aside a small percentage of your budgets for methods like expert review and heuristic evaluation.

Usability is more than a concept. In many organizations, usability is an important part of product development. And more and more companies are discovering that not only is usability good for users; it’s good business.

-Author: Anita Sedgwick, Director of Marketing and Sales at Usability Matters

Many of you have heard about UX (user experience), but are still unsure of what it means, why it’s important and how it can help you. It’s something that anyone responsible for web content can’t ignore, and we’ve put together a list of reasons to help you understand why you should consider working with a UX agency for your next project.

1. You will create the best possible user experience.

Successful websites — those sites that people love visiting — all have something in common. They manage to balance user needs with business goals. UX specialists understand that, and they are experts at creating that balance. They will even go as far to say that user needs must always come first. It makes sense. No matter what your business goals may be, if your customer can’t easily get what they need from your site, they’ll leave and visit your competitor.

So, is your site meeting your customer’s needs? Can you list the top three things they want from your site right now? Not what you want them to want, but what they actually want. How confident are you in how easy or difficult it is for people to use your site? A UX specialist can help you answer these questions. They’ll take an educated, evidence-based approach that will tell you what your customer wants, whether or not you’re giving it to them, and how easy it is for your customer to get that information.

They’ll support you in asking the right questions about presenting your products and services. Do people need them? Do they understand them? Will they do what they’re supposed to? Will they save time or money? Might they provide pleasure and delight?

They’ll also offer a holistic view — they look at the big picture, all the channels, and all the devices. They’ll do the research and study the details that make it work for your user. All, so that they can offer you an integrated design that fills a need.

2. You will be involved in and consulted during the process.

UX firms practice what they preach. They recognize you as the “user” of their service, and they want to create the best possible experience for you, and they will collaborate with you, step-by-step to get it right at every stage of the process.

Your project will be seen as a specific problem to be solved, and every step of the process is going to be tailored to solving that problem. The teams put in solid, creative forethought before workshops and meetings to ensure that you participate, are engaged and involved. They may encourage you to observe user testing where you’ll see that your users aren’t just like you, and you may even be surprised as to how some people try to use your site. But most importantly, they’ll take the time to guide you along way to ensure that you stay informed of how and why decisions being made.

They’ll make your day-to-day life easier, too. They’ll explain how user testing can help settle internal debates, and their evidence-based decisions will help you champion your project internally. From kick-off to project end, you will have a consistent, reliable experience.

3. You have complex challenges and need someone who understands them.

What you may see as overwhelming and complicated, a UX specialist will see as a problem waiting to be solved. If you’re facing a big project like making your site responsive, or accessible, or if you’re managing an omni-channel product launch, chances are good that they have already successfully worked through it with another client. The solution to your situation won’t be exactly the same. It will depend on your product, your users, your requirements and constraints, but a UX specialist can apply their previous experience to create a solution specific to you.

4. You will better understand the people who use your website.

Who visits your site most often? What are they looking for? What problems are they encountering? Why do they stay on one page and abandon another? What could make their experience better?

UX agencies answer these questions with design-focused consultation and research methods that investigate actual user behavior ­ — what people actually do, rather than what they say or think. They understand habits and preferences and how to design and create the content that your customers want. They may even point out that sometimes the people who actually visit your site aren’t even on your radar.

5. You care about the end product, and so should your designers.

Good UX agencies genuinely care about how people use your site. They also understand that your site’s success is based on conversion or task completion. That’s why they do all the solid, upfront research and thinking, and take the time to map out your user’s best path. They will test on real people so they’re going to be able to tell you where your users succeed and where they get stuck.

They’re going to look at your competition and explain why they do what they do, and whether or not it works. They do it because they want to make your site, and your ROI, better. They do it because they care about technology, and they care about people.

Still wondering about the top three things people want from your site? Do you want to change the user experience of your site or technology based products? Contact Anita, anita@usabilitymatters.com.

Do you want to know how products and designs become great? They are tested and trialled. One cost-effective way to do this, without rolling out a limited release or going live with an untested product, is usability testing.

Usability testing is when actual users come in and actually use a product — but it’s not as easy as it sounds.

The basic format for a usability test involves three roles: the user (called the participant), the facilitator and the analyst. The participant, who has been carefully screened with specific requirements, is asked to carry out a series of mini-tasks to accomplish a goal they might have. They are encouraged to think aloud though their actions, and the whole thing is recorded.

The analyst focuses more on what the participant does and less on what they say — but notes particularly interesting ideas and quotations. These real-time notations are tremendously valuable during the analysis across the 8, 10 or more session that might be run in a typical usability test.

The facilitator has the hardest job. They have to guide the participant, encourage them to think aloud, be reassuring and positive, but still minimize their impact on results. It requires someone to deftly walk the line between being useful to the participant as they tackle each task, while avoiding aiding the participant in the test. It’s an acquired skill — and a very particular mindset.

At Usability Matters, we use three main types of usability testing: formal, informal, and remote. All have their own advantages and drawbacks, so really it’s all about selecting the right tool for the job.

If you want to learn more about user research you should check out this webinar on our blog.

Formal usability testing

The details: Formal usability testing uses a research facility, complete with one-way mirrors for observation. The test is usually performed on a live site or a high-fidelity electronic prototype and often results in a formal usability report.

The Gain

• Stakeholders, designers and developers get to actually witness their users interacting with their product, an experience that can be humbling but incredibly useful.

The Trade-off

• Renting the facility and formalizing the report increases the cost, so if budgets are tight this might not be the test for you.

Best used? Formal testing is best used for large organizations that are heavily invested in a project already or are reviewing a digital product as an input to strategy or to make a business case for redesign.

Informal usability testing

The details: Informal usability testing is when the participants, rather than going to a research facility with a special room, simply drop by the office or another informal location (we use our meeting room). There are only two people watching — the facilitator and the analyst. The prototype can be lower-fidelity — maybe on paper or just barely electronic. The report is often less formal and might be directed at the design and development team, more than management.

The Gain

• Informal facility combines affordability with the benefits of in-person testing

The Trade-off

• It’s not possible for stakeholders to witness the live sessions, sacrificing an enlightening experience.

Best used? This style of test is best used if in-person testing is needed but budget restrictions don’t allow for formal usability testing. It’s often used to test designs in progress including concepts, navigation, and basic interactions.

Remote usability testing

The details Remote usability testing follows the same approach as formal and informal but the testing is conducted using web conference software. The participant, facilitator, analyst, and observers can all join from the location of their choice — watching the participant perform the tasks while guided by the facilitator.

The Gain

• Participants and observers can join from anywhere in the world
• Everyone uses the computer and set-up they are familiar with, including those with special needs and assistive devices

The Trade-off

• Despite our best efforts, sometimes the technology is a barrier due to software, equipment and connectivity glitches — but most of the sessions run very smoothly.

Best used? This style is best used when geography or accessibility is an issue. It is also cost effective — about the same as informal usability testing but with the opportunity for observers to watch one or all sessions from the comfort of their favourite chair.

There will be a lot of variables at play and the better you understand your situation, the better your chances for a successful journey.

So what are we doing again?

Are you changing the design of your site? Rejigging your site architecture? Evolving your business to meet current needs? Is the cost of maintaining your existing platform driving the decision for change?

Outline the pain points of your current situation and what goals you hope to achieve with the migration. Ensure that everybody even remotely involved with the endeavor understands what you are doing and why you are doing it.

What are our content needs?

How much content do you have? How often will you be publishing new content? How many content creators do you have? How many distinct types of content do you have? How many different templates (page styles) will you need? What is the creation and approval process (workflow) for content?

Now is the time to scrutinize your current site architecture and design. This is a big move and you want to get it right. Get your content sorted before you move forward or the angst will be 10 fold down the road.

Which one?

There are plenty of great CMS platforms out there and while many will do the same stuff, some are specialized to cater to certain types of businesses. The choice between open source (free) and proprietary ($$) is still up for debate depending on your business needs. Regardless, all of your existing content should find a home in most platforms. Current CMS options will likely support your SEO and social media needs but be prepared to reorganize your site architecture and modify or redesign page templates to conform to any constraints so things fit nicely into your new nest.

Some things you will be considering are:

1. Cost. The costs of licensing, hosting, implementation and maintenance will factor in. Adding more servers and OS licenses down the road may impact future budgets. Be thorough with your outlook — even open source platforms might have 3rd party add-ons that come at a price.

2. Resource and knowledge availability. You may have internal resources available for developing and enhancing your CMS but if you need new hires to do the work then you want to select a CMS that is well propagated in the world so that technical resources are available and affordable.

3. A vibrant user community. Documented support is key. Yes, forums are alive and kickin’ on the web. Check user activity on the most popular forums attached to the platform. If there are tumbleweeds blowing through a ghost town that’s supposed to be the main community resource — abort!

4. Workflow and publishing cycles. Almost all systems out of the box will allow anyone to quickly publish web pages, but larger organizations may require various workflow approvals so customization could be a big factor. If there are different parties — internally or externally — involved with the content creation, then this will impact the technical analysis and cost. Hosting and managing users across different organizations can be more challenging if your CMS is behind a corporate firewall.

5. Front-end development and design. If you are going to be adding a variety of content that may require new page designs in the foreseeable future, then make sure you land on a platform where your front-end resources can easily implement newly designed page templates with little grief. Usability matters for this too.

And the winner is…

Now that you’ve narrowed down your choice to one(or two) platforms, get the players involved. Content creators, designers, publishers and tech peeps — all should be involved in vetting your new CMS choice. These are your subjects for user testing the product. People who will be working with the system the most are the ones you need to hear from. The good news is these users are eager to test and available — they may even be in-house.

Who’s gonna do what now?

It’s all hands on deck. Well, as many as you can get anyway. Your content will need to be prepped for flight before it takes off for its new destination. In most cases, article pages will need to be converted to plain text to remove any existing code attached to them from the old system. Internal and external links will need to be updated if the URL structure changes. Redirects will be needed for bookmarked pages and embedded links.

For many contributors this won’t be their only on-going project — be respectful of their other duties when rolling them into your master plan.

Plan, plan, and plan.

You need a rock solid map to the finish line. It needs to have achievable milestones and be adequately resourced. Your plan should allow for the team to expect and be prepared for changes — even right from the get go. Contingency plans need to be drawn up early if the schedule goes off the rails.

No plan survives first contact.

Now that you’ve got your unbreakable plan in place, expect it to fail. As diligently as you scope for all the inevitable things that can go wrong, there will be no way you can forecast all of the minor (or major) mishaps along the way.

Essentially you need to have the flexibility to keep all hands going and stay busy as things change. Remember, the goal is to win the content migration battle — not to do it in a specific way. If a goofy idea works, it’s not goofy.

Happy flying.

However, there are a few items that are easy to implement and can make a huge impact on the accessibility of your product’s user interface.

There’s a common misconception that an accessible digital product means sacrificing visual design, but there are many subtle changes you can make that will vastly improve the way people interact with and view your brand. Here are a few quick and easy tips you can implement today to help your users.

Colour Contrast

Colour contrast is one of the most commonly known accessibility issues, and yet it’s still a problem for many companies. To meet the minimum recommended accessibility (Level AA WCAG 2.0) large text (19px bold and above or 24px regular and above) has to meet a minimum contrast ratio of 3:1. Other visible text within your digital product has to meet a minimum contrast ratio of 4.5:1. Text that’s part of an inactive component and logos are exempt, but don’t you want everyone to see your logo clearly?

When Sun Life Financial uses yellow with white on their site, it doesn’t pass colour contrast at all. If paired with black, Sun Life’s yellow would meet the highest level of colour contrast and ultimately be easier to read for all users.

Manulife Financial, on the other hand, goes well beyond meeting colour contrast for their green when used with white.

Test it yourself: Visit WebAIM’s Color Contrast Checker and enter in hex values (the html colour codes used within your interface) for your background and text colours. An alternative, and a tool we love around the office, is the Colour Contrast Analyser app made by the Paciello Group and is free to download for Mac and Windows.

Distinguishable Links

Along with meeting colour contrast guidelines, text links within your digital product shouldn’t rely on colour alone to distinguish them from surrounding text.

Scotiabank only uses red to distinguish links. Someone with colour blindness probably won’t be able to tell what they can and can’t click on, such as “Scotiabank advisor”.

RBC Royal Bank uses underlines as well as blue to convey what text is clickable, which helps links stand out for people with all visual abilities.

Test it yourself: View your design in black and white. Can you easily tell what text is clickable? If not, make some visual changes (the underline is an easy and popular way to distinguish links) and test again.

Pause or Stop Multimedia

As designers, we’ve seen our fair share of carousels — good, bad, and ugly. While carousels themselves are a questionable approach, if you do happen to use one that automatically rotates make sure to include a pause or stop button.

Industrial Alliance’s carousel automatically rotates at a fairly quick pace, which makes reading information difficult for anyone with cognitive impairments or those who are zoomed in.

Desjardins Insurance uses a pause button placed on a white background for their carousel. Placing the pause button on a white background rather than on the carousel image itself ensures it’s easily seen by all and gives more control over colour contrast.

No test for this one. If your carousel automatically rotates, it automatically fails accessibility. Include a pause or stop button to give users more control of the interface.

With the differing abilities of users and rapidly expanding ways people are accessing the digital world, creating an accessible product is crucial to the success of your online brand.

Let us know if you’ve seen any sites out there that could be more accessible. In the meantime, feel free to check out this infographic on the importance of accessibility.

References:
1. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

Last week we took our first deep dive into 3 of our Service Design Heuristics.

Did you miss the introduction to our Service Design Heuristics?

This article will dig into four more of our heuristics, providing illustrative examples and analysis.

Leverage existing resources

Consider the whole system and what existing parts could be used to better deliver the service. Find opportunities to augment, repurpose, or redeploy resources.

Good service design finds ways to build on existing systems and assets.

Things to consider:

• Are there ways to piggyback on what currently exists?
• Can the service be more efficiently deployed or create additional value with existing resources?

Service example: ColaLife

This service piggybacks aid delivery on Coca Cola’s global distribution network. Simon Berry’s ColaLife charity saw an opportunity to transport life-saving oral rehydration solution (ORS) to remote areas of places like Zambia — where diarrhea was the second-biggest cause of easily preventable death amongst children.

ColaLife’s Anti-Diarrheal Kit in AidPod Mark VII
Image Credit: ADK in AidPod Mark VII courtesy of Simon Berry, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

ColaLife developed a wedge-shaped container (AidPod) that fits between the necks of bottles in a Coca Cola crate to make use of the space that would otherwise be wasted. The package also acts as a measuring cup and storage container. This type of multi-use touchpoint exemplifies leveraging existing resources.

Distributors and wholesalers inspect different crates and bottles
Image Credit: Different crates and bottles courtesy of Simon Berry, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Interestingly, many of the current anti-diarrhea kit retailers have not made use of the Coca-Cola crate compatibility. However, by gaining access to Coke’s wholesalers, ColaLife is also leveraging the principles that allow Coke to be so successful at distributing its product.

What makes this a successful service design is that by taking advantage of Coca Cola’s existing distribution network ColaLife has been able to make their kits affordable enough so that all service partners (wholesalers, distributors, retailers and, of course, customers) benefit.

Building on what already exists, and making sure that each touchpoint creates value by being multipurpose creates a strong service proposition.

Consistency across channels and at all scales

Continuity of brand, experience and information should exist around the entire service system. Actors should be able to seamlessly move across channels.

This heuristic helps determine if a continuous service experience exists as actors move between the different channels through which a service is delivered and at all scales of the service, from micro-interactions through to the overall service relationship.

Things to consider:

• Is information provided to the system in one channel available and consistent in others?
• Do all touchpoints feel like they belong to the same brand and experience?

Service example: Starbucks

The Starbucks rewards program gives customers the option to top up their Starbucks card balance on their phone with a mobile app, online with the Starbucks website, or in store with the help of a barista.

Any card balance or profile changes are reflected in real-time across all channels. This means that regardless of the touchpoint a customer uses, the information will be up-to-date. In tandem with this, the experience and brand feels consistent in terms of visual design and tone of interaction.

This holistic multichannel experience also extends to payment and earning rewards. Paying for a cup of coffee can be done with a physical rewards card or using the Starbucks mobile app. Reward points are also updated in real-time on the customer’s account without any action required on the customer’s part.

Screen-capture of Starbucks app

Starbucks’ multichannel experience allows for smooth channel switching as well as providing a consistent brand manifestation across the board — exemplifying this heuristic.

Screen-capture of Starbucks app

Starbucks’ multichannel experience allows for smooth channel switching as well as providing a consistent brand manifestation across the board — exemplifying this heuristic.

Graceful entry and exits

Provide flexible, natural entry and exit points to and from the service. Consider when it is appropriate for actors to jump in, or to achieve closure.

This heuristic asks if the service can begin and end at natural, appropriate moments for all actors.

Things to consider:

• Can a customer start interacting with the service when they want?
• Can the customers stop interacting with the service on their own terms?
• Is it easy to pick up and put down a service interaction?
• Can the service provider still complete the transactions they need to maintain the service while allowing customers to come and go as they please?

Service example: Public Transit Passes in Toronto, Canada and London, England

Getting around quickly is an essential part of city life. The experience of gaining and maintaining access to public transit runs the gamut between archaic and clunky to smooth and modern from one city to another.

In Toronto, Canada, weekly and monthly Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) passes are available, but they are only activated on the first day of the week or month respectively, regardless of the day on which they are purchased. Passes can also only be purchased at select stations between certain hours and only certain payment methods are accepted.

These rigid entry and exit points to the service mean the actual value of the passes decline continually as the week or month continues while the cost remains the same.

TTC Metropasses provide rigid entry and exit to the system, decreasing in value as the week or month continues, while the cost remains the same.

The Oyster program in London, UK, on the other hand, allows customers to access the transit system through a cashless, pay-per-use model.

A customer can obtain and activate an Oyster card whenever they choose, either online or at ticket booths around the city, allowing for smooth entry to the service. The cards also allow precise, distance-based fares since customers scan in and out of the transit network.

Oyster cards don’t have a fixed expiry date, as customers can continuously top up their cards, either automatically or manually online or at a kiosk. This means that customers can choose to exit the service on their terms once they have used up their credit.

These graceful entry and exit points help provide a better overall service experience in London than the rigid options for accessing transit service in Toronto.

Oyster cards allow for flexible entries and exits to and from the public transit service in London, UK
Image Credit: londondesigner.com via Compfight cc

Set expectations

Let actors know succinctly what to expect. Assist understanding of where they are in the system through the design of environments and information.

Nobody enjoys feeling adrift in a process or environment they don’t understand. This heuristic asks if people can orient themselves in a service experience, through such factors as the design of specific touchpoints themselves, or the design of supports, for example maps, supplementary information or assistive interventions.

Things to consider:

• Do actors know what will happen next?
• Is it easy to locate themselves physically within a bricks and mortar touchpoint, (like a store), or conceptually within a process, (like a billing cycle)?
• Is it easy to way-find within the service?

Service example: Zipcar

Zipcar does a great job of setting expectations across multiple aspects of the service. Since it relies on a self-service business model, it is critical for Zipcar to embrace this heuristic.

Setting expectations is done well through the design of physical onboarding materials. When a new member joins Zipcar, along with their “Zipcard” (membership card and access key) they receive a simple welcome kit in the mail. Along with the basic steps for first-time use, customers are also presented with the “6 simple rules” of using a Zipcar. Covering these at one of the first major touchpoints takes care of most of the common questions a new customer might have and sets behavioural expectations. It also helps the customer orient themselves in the process of using and returning a Zipcar.

Zipcar pays attention to setting expectations

Another example of good expectation setting is the “Where I live” information that is included with a Zipcar reservation confirmation email. This granular, detailed information assists people in locating their vehicle, a crucial touchpoint and service interaction.

The “Where I Live” information in a Zipcar reservation confirmation email guides drivers to their car step-by-step.]

By paying attention to expectation setting, Zipcar maximizes the opportunity for successful service experience.

We hope we’ve provided you with a deeper understanding of these 4 Service Design Heuristics.

Stay tuned for next week’s post where we’ll explore our 3 remaining Service Design Heuristics:

• The right information at the right time
• Actor autonomy and freedom
• Appropriate pace and rhythm of delivery

Until next time!

The last of 3 deep dives into the new tool we’ve been developing at our studio.

The right information at the right time

Actor autonomy and freedom

Appropriate pace and rhythm of delivery

Last week we took our second deep dive into 3 of our Service Design Heuristics.

Did you miss the introduction, or our first deep dive into our Service Design Heuristics? Check our blog for more information and a link to an infographic that explains service design in more detail.

This week we’re taking our look at our three remaining heuristics, providing illustrative examples and analysis.

But, stay tuned for our next post where we’ll be releasing our Service Design Heuristics Workbook!

The right information at the right time

Tell the actors and the system what they need to know with the right level of detail, at the right time. Weigh the costs and benefits of providing more or less precise information.

People are inundated with information and data. Good service design helps actors make informed decisions without becoming overwhelmed.

Things to consider:

Does the service strategically curate and filter information so that it is contextual and timely?

Are actors provided with the information they need at the point of decision-making?

Is the balance of precision and ease of comprehension appropriate for the service?

Service example: Uber

When an Uber passenger wants to get picked up in a hurry, it’s crucial that the driver know the passenger’s location with quite a high level of precision in order for the pick-up experience to go smoothly. A positive service experience hinges on either reliable GPS data or accurate manual entry by the passenger.

The difference between whether the driver thinks the passenger is standing on the north or south side of a busy boulevard can mean the difference between a speedy pick-up and a drawn-out, frustrating wait for the both passenger and driver (and a potentially dangerous experience for the driver if a phone call or U-turn is necessary). The precision of this data has a high impact on the service experience.

Hailing an Uber requires some high-precision location information from the passenger to ensure a smooth service experience.

On the other hand, a precise drop-off location is not crucial information at the time of hailing, though it does help the driver choose the most efficient route before the passenger even hops in.

Is the cost of asking the passenger to enter their drop-off location worth the value to the driver of being able to pre-chart their route?

Alternate service example: Fresh City Farms

Fresh City Farms delivers organic produce to Torontonians’ doorsteps every week. In this service experience, a fair amount of ambiguity is acceptable and may even be desired.

A customer may identify general categories of produce they would like each week, such as citrus fruits or leafy greens but they will not be able to choose which exact orange or bunch of fresh spinach ends up in their basket. They also have the ability to rule out a certain food if, for example, they hate broccoli.

http://www.freshcityfarms.com/how-it-works
Fresh City Farms supports an acceptable amount of ambiguity in the experience of selecting food items.

Furthermore, the mystery of what food items might be in the next box of produce can provide a bit of excitement for an adventurous epicure. For those who want to know what to expect ahead of time, an email with ‘expected bag contents’ allows for planning. Fresh City Farms offsets any uncertainty around how to prepare an unfamiliar foodstuff by providing handy recipe cards with each delivery.

The information provided is timely, and at the right level of detail.

Another acceptably imprecise aspect of the service information is the drop-off time. For most customers, so long as the basket is sitting on their doorstep when they arrive home (and on hotter days so long as the produce has been packed in an insulated bag or is left in a shady spot) they will not be interested in what precise time the produce is delivered. This allows Fresh City to optimize delivery routes for efficiency and sustainability.

In this case, the cost of potentially providing customers with delivery notifications is probably not worth the minimal value it would add to the service experience.

Actor autonomy and freedom

The service ecosystem should fit around the habits of those involved. Do not expect people to adapt their life or work styles to suit the service model.

Increasingly complex and busy lives in some parts of the world mean that good service experiences are expected to be convenient. This heuristic asks if the ways people actually want to interact with a service are supported.

Things to consider:

Are there specific times when this service is unavailable?

Why are these necessary?

Does the service model match the actors’ life and work styles?

How are unexpected requests handled by the service?

Service example: Having a parcel delivered

The typical delivery of a large, expensive or sensitive item can generate a fair amount of frustration for the customer and delivery person due to a lack of actor autonomy and freedom.

Customers who work outside the home or cannot be available for an entire 8-hour window find this service model causes friction with their lifestyle.

Even those customers who do make the effort of being home during that window have the unpleasant experience of being afraid of leaving their front door unattended (even when nature calls!) for fear of missing a knock at the door or a buzz from downstairs. The service model expects people to adapt their behaviour to avail of the service, and this causes frustration.

Delivery drivers are often not provided with mobile phones by courier companies for liability reasons, further complicating the experience for customers and delivery staff by failing to match the ways in which people expect to live and work. For those who live in apartment buildings or have a broken buzzer, not being able to be contacted by phone is a surprising and unexpected example of the service not supporting actor autonomy and freedom.

Alternate service example: Doddle

Doddle is a parcel collection, sending and returning service in the U.K. that acts as an intermediary, accepting parcels on a customer’s behalf and holding onto them until it is convenient for the customer to come collect them. The infrastructure is built around railway stations, which offer a convenient service location for those who travel through transit hubs on their commute. Coupled with long opening hours, Doddle provides a service that fits around 9-to-5 workers’ lifestyles.

https://www.doddle.it
Doddle has disrupted traditional postal and courier services by providing more autonomy and freedom to customers.

By providing customers with more autonomy and freedom, new business models like Doddle’s are disrupting traditional postal and courier services that are not adapting to people’s current life and work styles. These alternatives emerge as denying autonomy and freedom in service use and delivery creates friction for all stakeholders.

Appropriate pace and rhythm of delivery

All actors should experience and provide the service at a suitable and sustainable pace.

This heuristic asks if the timing of how the service is experienced feels right for that service.

Things to consider:

Is this a service that should be delivered at a pace that is quick and efficient or one that is more slowly savoured and enjoyed?

In terms of rhythm, how often do actors need to interact in order to maintain an enjoyable service experience?

Is the pace comfortable and sustainable, or might it cause frustration or inconvenience?

How many interactions does it take to complete a service task? Too many? Too few? Just the right number?

What would the impacts or opportunities be of varying the pace and rhythm?

Service example: Momofuku Milk Bar, Noodle Bar, Daisho, and Shōtō

Momofuku is a Japanese restaurant chain with locations in New York, Sydney and Toronto. Within each Momofuku restaurant are several smaller dining experiences each with a distinct pace, rhythm and overall style.

On one end of the scale is the “Milk Bar”, a totally self-serve snack and confection shop that feels more like a candy aisle than an upscale restaurant. Customers choose the pre-packaged treat they would like and pay for it as they exit the restaurant — much like a traditional grocery or fast-food experience.

Similarly, the “Noodle Bar” takes more of a “fast food” approach, offering a set menu of street-food style dishes in a more casual, youthful and noisy environment with minimal interaction with staff. Food is delivered promptly, as is the bill. The experience is efficient but still pleasant.

http://momofuku.com/toronto/noodle-bar-to/
Momofuku’s Noodle Bar has a faster pace of service delivery that feels appropriate for the more casual setting.

On the other end of the scale, “Shōtō“ is a very high-end, personalized experience. Diners are treated to a personalized menu, prepared in front of them by a personal chef. The experience is all about savouring the experience and time is of little consequence.

http://momofuku.com/toronto/shoto/
Momofuku’s Shoto experience has a much slower pace, where every detail is tended to by the attentive chef and serving staff. This is appropriate for the high-end service experience.

By offering diners several options that each address a different need by delivering the dining experience at the pace and rhythm appropriate to that experience, Momofuku has built a growing fan-base around the world.

Service Design Heuristics — A Beginning

Our aim is that this beta set of heuristics will be used as both an evaluative tool and a generative tool when thinking about service design.

The examples included illustrate just a few of the ways the service design heuristics can be applied and thought about. There are many complex layers and levels to a service, and the heuristics could be applied through many lenses.

We see opportunities for this tool to be used to inform and complement measurement and data strategies. What metrics might be relevant to a certain heuristic? What data can we capture that will inform service improvement? What existing data can be triangulated or matched to particular heuristics? The heuristics are an additional tool in an evaluation toolkit.

The heuristics can also be used in the context of a competitive review, and may reveal opportunities to differentiate or compete in novel ways.

Most of all, we see this as the continuation of a global conversation about service design. We look forward to your input! Reach us at info@usabilitymatters.com, @umatters, or +1–416–598–7770

Go forth and Service Design, and don’t forget to check back soon for our Service Design Heuristics Workbook!

The Usability Matters Service Design Heuristics would of course not exist without the work and thinking of a growing community of service designers around the world. We are excited to be part of this conversation. In case you’re curious, check out some of the key resources and inspiration we drew upon.

Types of impairments that may affect how people use your website:

• Visual impairments such as low vision, colour blindness and blindness.
• Auditory impairments like people with restricted hearing or who are deaf.
• Mobility impairments such as inability to make fine movements or inability to use a mouse or keyboard.
• Cognitive impairments, which includes people with dyslexia, learning disabilities and even memory loss.

Click Here To Download This Infographic.

It’s bigger than you think!

Accessibility benefits people with or without disabilities, including:

• Older people and new users
• People who don’t have or are unable to use a keyboard/mouse
• People not fluent in English
• People with temporary disabilities due to accident/illness

3 reasons to make your website accessible

1. Increase your audience customer base
2. It may provide significant financial benefits
3. It’s the right thing to do legally and morally

Did you know?

People with a disability have a global annual spending power of *$996 billion.

Businesses that devote the time and resources to create fully accessible experiences will benefit their customers, themselves, and the community at large.

It can be difficult to know where to start with your digital efforts. Last fall, the Usability Matters team hosted a webinar on user testing for accessibility. We’ve provided the slides, recording, Q&A, and crafted a list of resources that can help you make your digital product more accessible for everyone.

*Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Labor of Statistics, Statistics Canada, Eurostat, FQA. — in USD.

Download the entire Service Design Heuristics infographic.

Last week we were delighted to introduce our Service Design Heuristics to the world![NC1]

This week we’re diving into a bit more detail for 3 of those heuristics, providing illustrative examples and analysis.

Address real need

Solve people’s problems while providing value that feels like it’s worth the effort.

Base service models on needs identified from contextual research with people.

A good service should make life easier. Understanding how actors (any person involved in the creation, delivery, support or use of a service) interact with a service in the real world is the best way to understand how well the service performs.

Things to consider:

· Is the value the service provides to actors worth the effort of interacting with it?

· What real needs does this service address?

· What needs could be better addressed?

Service example: GOV.UK

In 2013 the UK government set out to redesign 25 of their major services to be simpler, clearer and faster to use. These are services that people interact with every day and in are in many cases mandatory (such as visa applications and prison visit bookings).

One of the guiding design principles the Government Digital Services (GDS) team adhered to was to “start with needs” (and further clarified “user needs, not government needs”).

Screen-capture of Government Digital Services 10 guiding design principles

This guided a shift in approach from providing “articles” from each government agency explaining how to use the various services they provide, to structuring all communication based on user needs (or “tasks”).

Screen-capture of the GOV.UK website

This shift meant that user needs could now be grouped and prioritized, which led to a service experience that is much more user-centred (rather than government-centred) and that allows people to find the information and go through the transactions they need with considerably less cognitive effort. The gov.uk team used traffic and search data to determine which needs people were trying to meet. Understanding needs in context using available data was a key input into the grouping and prioritization of needs.

Using the new GOV.UK site certainly feels worth the effort when the answers a user is looking for can be found with a few short clicks. It also meets strict accessibility standards, so that as many people’s needs as possible are addressed.

Clarity of service offering

Provide a clear service offering, in familiar terms. Actors should easily grasp if a service is right for them, and what they are trying to deliver.

This heuristic asks how easy it is for an actor to understand what a service does and whether it is right for them. Clarity comes from demonstrating a clear value proposition.

Things to consider:

· What can this service do?

· How might an actor interact with it?

· Is it clear if the service will be a good fit for an actor and vice versa?

Service example: Actors’ Fund of Canada

The Actors’ Fund provides aid to individuals in the cultural or entertainment industry who are in need of emergency assistance. The process is initiated when a request form is submitted. This process requires detailed review and a quick response to ensure that eligible applicants get the critical funding they need and that the disbursement process meets due diligence criteria.

Prior to the redesign, it was unclear to applicants if they were eligible to receive aid, and what types of costs the aid would be able to cover. This led to much frustration and wasted time for both applicants (who might go through the whole application process only to find out they were never eligible), and for caseworkers (who spent too much time discerning if an applicant was eligible and following up).

http://actorsfund.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/AFC_Apply_15-2.pdf

The redesigned Actor’s Fund application form

The redesigned application form clearly outlines what eligibility criteria must be met to apply and what costs the Fund can help right up front before the application process begins.

Results from initial testing showed the number of incomplete or ineligible applications were considerably reduced. By clearly communicating the service offering upfront, the service experience is much smoother for applicants and service providers.

Build lasting relationships

The service system should support appropriate interactions, allow for flexibility of use, and foster ongoing relationships. The right level of engagement supports an evolving service experience.

The quality of the interactions that actors within a service system have with one another throughout the customer lifecycle, and how they build on each other to result in an overall positive service experience forms the basis of this heuristic.

Things to consider:

· When is it appropriate to provide self-serve options?

· When is a human interaction more appropriate?

· Does the relationship between actors evolve over time or does it start at square one with each interaction?

Service example: Apple My Support Profile

Apple provides My Support Profile, an online tool that allows customers to keep track of the products they own, any service cases or repairs related to those products as well as communication preferences.

The profile allows Apple’s customer service team to build an enduring relationship with customers, having access to all previous service cases and outcomes as well as providing customers with a better sense of control and visibility of their relationship with Apple support.

https://supportprofile.apple.com/

Screen-capture of the apple support/profile website

Apple’s VoicePass functionality in the profile eliminates the need for lengthy explanations from customers about a technical or service problem each time they call. Customers identify the issue or type of service required through the web interface and the customer can choose at what point they would like to initiate a human interaction with a service representative by either phone, SMS or live chat.

https://getsupport.apple.com/ServiceOptionAction.action

Screen-capture of the apple support options page

Alternate service example: NYC 311

Many municipal governments around the world provide less than stellar service experiences via their non-emergency hotlines.

Residents must usually call interactive voice response (IVR) systems to get information or lodge complaints and must often sift through lengthy lists of options and re-explain their situation to several city staff members as they get passed from one department to another.

http://www1.nyc.gov/311/

Screen-capture of the NYC 311 website

The City of New York overhauled their customer service experience in 2013. The revamped service includes an improved web interface and a mobile app that allow residents to, among other things, better triage and track complaints to NYC service staff.

Residents who have a complaint with the city can self-select from common categories or issues and provide further details to the city support staff. A unique case number is generated, the resident gets a confirmation email and they can check back on the status of their complaint at any time.

Screen-captures of the NYC 311 iPhone app

Residents no longer need to re-explain their complaint or even remember convoluted case numbers as a continuous, evolving relationship is fostered between residents and NYC service staff. NYC 311’s customer satisfaction ratings now surpass even the highest-performing private-sector call centres, according to a study conducted using the American Customer Satisfaction Index.

Mitchell Moss, director of the Taub Urban Research Centre at NYU explains the impact of this service:

“For the first time, we now have a real handle on what troubles New Yorkers. And New Yorkers have a place they can communicate without having an intermediary. In a city as large as New York, knowing who to turn to is the most difficult challenge there is. It’s amazing how fast it’s become part of the city’s culture.”

We hope we’ve provided you with a deeper understanding of these 3 Service Design Heuristics.

Stay tuned for next week’s post where we’ll explore:

· Leverage existing resources
· Consistency across channels at any scale
· Graceful entry and exit
· Set Expectations

The next post will discuss the following four heuristics from our original list of ten.

[NC1]LINKS TO INTRO BLOG POST