UX Journeys: Unexpected, Yet Better Products (Part 2)
In Part 1 we talked about the thinking which went into a fairly firm product; in Part 2, we talk towards how the product changed drastically
In case you missed Part 1, here’s a quick summary:
Commissioned to design an app which mimiced an action of requesting a small group of known persons for a cooked meal; our initial actions aimed to clarify the product goal based on this premise. Our investigation defined two distinct directions, one of which will become the product. The other informed us as to what we couldn’t do. This is where we pick up on this UX Journey.
At several points, we left the sketch and went right into the application design. However, it was pretty clear from the first product that we didn’t want to spend a lot of time designing each micro-interaction. Rather, it was necessary to paint a picture of most of one side of the interaction, and then iterate towards addressing items found when doing the analysis work spoken about in the previous section.
Going into the higher-fidelity design tasks, the aim was to grab some of the major interaction breakpoints and then move towards filing in the gaps. Settling on a color scheme not too dissimilar from the other, branched product, we went to work looking at specific pieces which might need to be further detailed before moving to higher fidelity prototypes/wireframes or even development.
It was pretty clear we didn’t pay enough attention to micro-interactions, and so we went back to the outline of the experience in order to better understand flows, data, and what might need to be challenged/changed at a later date.
UX Journey Takeaways:
UX lessons and opportunities began to make themselves quite evident here:
- There is no such thing as a final design. Colors, themes, and layouts need to have flexibility to change (simplify) until the message is clearest
- The temptation to just let the wireframe dictate interactions is high here; we had to actually make the screens incomplete so that we could ask better questions about what the service should do, what the user should/shouldn’t expect, and then how we would work around/within those constraints
- Initial designs didn’t pay attention to interface guidelines. This was on purpose. We wanted to make sure we got out all of the abstract pieces before cleaning things up towards platform requirements.
This is a specific context for some of the work Mindboard’s UX Practice explores with our clients. While its a viewpoint, and offers deliverables which are coherent with this project, this might not be the deliverables which work for you. Besides sketchboards and wireframes, we also product personas, UX audits, prototypes, and guidance for development frameworks for the final product. Depending on the needs of the project, Mindboard aims to ensure that its clear the problem being solved, the products being developed, and the impact on its users and consumers.