What UX and Volcanoes Have in Common
I’ve been thinking lately of the varying levels of attention that software app/product companies seem to pay to user experience design. It seems the nature of this attention and, what’s most important, from whom in the company it originates, is the key to a product’s success. This article that goes on how designers have no seat at the table helped me shape the message.
There are three influencing forces that form a landscape of a product’s UX: design, development, and business. Business domain covers product strategy and marketing, and is supposed to serve as a proxy for the clients’ voices. As for landscapes, we know that in turbulent geological times they are formed by a volcanic activity, and volcanic activities bring lava along. Considering how fateful the quality of user experience is for digital products, we can compare it to a lava lake, with fire bubbles bursting when at some point they cannot hold the tension anymore.
Look at it this way:
There are 3 most common cases of such bubble bursts:
- Development. That’s when developers have no seat at the table, and product UX decisions are made by business folks and designers. This scenario is called “putting a lipstick on a pig”, and it happens when companies want to give their product a facelift, as they refurbish it with slick colors, smooth pixels, or neat shadows, ignoring major functional changes that would revolutionize the way in which users experience this product. Why would a product company want to decorate their pig? It depends on personal preferences and backgrounds of stakeholders in the company, as well as on some organizational constraints (a shortage of skilled developers, for example). If an influential stakeholder comes from a business background (strategy, marketing, etc.) and believes that graphical design is what matters most, then the lipstick is wanted. I’m intentionally making this look very black-and-white; it’s hardly that things work that way in the real world (I hope).
- Design. That’s when designers have no seat at the table and are regarded as “expensive pets” (quoting from the article referenced in the first paragraph above). The lava of UX would have the bubble bursting at the design point, if a product with powerful functionality is handcuffed to poor graphics or to a bumpy interactions flow. Enterprise software — think powerful functionality trapped in poor design — is the first thing that comes to my mind in this regard.
- Business. Here, stakeholders act more from the design +development standpoint, rather than from the strategy +marketing one. In other words, there’s a certain difficulty looking at the product with the users’ eyes. This scenario may occur if stakeholders trace their humble beginnings to development, and the first thing they consider about a better UX is this: how hard would that be in terms of development? Not that such stakeholders would ignore strategic considerations completely; this is more about the way software developers are wired. Passionate geeks might be so preoccupied with the supposed coolness of a functionality, that they’d completely ignore the needs of mere mortals, the customers, who might not actually be in great need of the coolness. In this case, the bubble explodes at the biz nozzle.
How is then everything supposed to work well in this lava lake of UX? How to keep it simmering just enough to produce a smooth landscape for clients? Think empathy and observation, on a larger scale. There’s no too small a detail, and no too small a consideration. Unless the creators of product want it solely for themselves, the highest priority has to be given to the way the others experience it. If designers or developers weigh in on the product’s UX, they will want to open their minds (and hearts) to the voice of customer proxies, people who interact with customers in the field and collect feedback. Or, with people who steer the product in the required strategic direction. If a functionally powerful product has a clumsy operation mode, many points go off the product’s score. If a graphically immaculate product has no functional power and lacks competitive edge, it’d hardly be worth anything real, except that it’d look like one of the glossy balls that they put on Christmas trees. If a powerful and cute product does not attend to user interactions and flows, if stakeholders are deaf to what customer proxies (or customers) are saying, this negligence would backfire, sooner or later.
The lava has to simmer, and there’s no way to keep those bubbles from bursting. Products do not exist in a vacuum, they develop and change, often in line with how stakeholders switch accents from development to design, or to marketing. Just remember to keep a watchful eye and take action if those influencing powers are about to provoke a bubble burst.
Related:
This story is based on an earlier article.
