Happiness machines

HAPPINESS MACHINES
WebVisions Portland | 2012

Andrew Hinton The Understanding Group
@inkblurt @undrstndng

Click to start clock!!!

HAPPINESS MACHINES
WebVisions Portland | 2012

Andrew Hinton The Understanding Group
@inkblurt @undrstndng

Intro .... quickly.

This is a presentation about questions.

(Let me know if you have any answers?)

@inkblurt

Coke’s “Happiness Machine”

@inkblurt

Coke’s “Happiness Machine” video. Viewable here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqT_dPApj9U

4 million + views on YouTube

@inkblurt

That video was highly successful as a narrative for a brand. It made the rounds everywhere. It
even got a lot of play at the ﬁnancial services company where I was working.
People saw it and thought: I want to make my customers that happy!
But recently I found myself wondering just how effective that video really is, when faced with the
reality of the experience.
So I made my own little movie. ...

@inkblurt

movie plays - see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=runvBNxIYBo
I try to buy a drink from a coke machine; it doesn’t take my money, and then when it does I
discover it is out of the drink I wanted (doesn’t let me know this until I put my money in); I try a
new machine, also out of the drink.
Finally get a different drink, then when I open it, because it dropped to the bottom of the
machine, it spews froth everywhere and makes a mess.

Expectations Reality
vs

gekko-image.com
unicorns.com

@inkblurt

So, what went wrong here?
It seems to me that an expectation was set -- a brand story was told about a product.
The product is ﬁne ... but the way the product got delivered ... the whole experience ... cast a
shadow on the product itself.
Did the machinery meet its requirements, technically?
Yeah! It took my money, it delivered a soft drink. Everything worked.
But in some fundamental way, it missed the mark.
It’s like I was promised a unicorn, but got dropped in a dirty stable. Technically there was a four-
legged animal there, but it’s not the magical experience I was expecting.

@inkblurt

So, obviously I’m not here to talk about vending machines. But in a way I am. Because software is
machinery -- it’s just made of code rather than hardware.
Just like hardware, it’s something we make that we then want to interact with us, help us, even
take care of us.
And we have many of the same problems with it.
But unlike vending machines, which have been used by the general public for at least a couple of
generations, software used to be much more rare.

REST OF LIFE

OTHER WORK TASKS

ONE WORK TASK

@inkblurt

The software was often geared around just one specialized task, and it was only one thing during
a given day that someone would have to work with.
Just imagine -- a time when so few people actually worked with software, and only did so for part
of their jobs.

REST OF LIFE

OTHER WORK TASKS

ONE WORK TASK

@inkblurt

It didn’t take very long before the personal computer revolution came to the enterprise.
Then we had to learn things like word processors and spreadsheet software.
There would often be special training for these as well -- and we spent more time using these
programs.
But that was still about it -- a few people had computers at home, but would usually only spend
limited time with them, again doing only a few tasks, like writing a letter or balancing a
checkbook.

REST OF LIFE

OTHER WORK TASKS

ONE WORK TASK

@inkblurt

Turned into one where we’re all suddenly covered up with software and technological devices.
Each one of which requires that we learn how to use it just to get everyday things done.

Every product, service & organization...

ORG

SERVICE

PRODUCT

... is wrapped in software.
@inkblurt

Not only that -- but now everything a company tries to do has to be wrapped up in software in
some way, whether a web site (or web-based application) or a mobile app, or some other digital
interactive layer.

So now we need to make software
‣ anybody can use
‣ and want to use
‣ without pay, and
‣ without training.

This was/is the catalyst for UX.

@inkblurt

So just to be clear -- we went, in about 15 years, from being in a world where most people who
used software did so only because they had to for their jobs, and were trained to do so,
to being in a world where the stakes are much higher.
Namely, our livelihoods and businesses depend on making a digital layer that anyone can use --
and ideally something they *want* to use -- even though we’re not paying them, and we’re not
training them.
>> This was the catalyst for user-experience design and the practices most associated with it.

UX TO THE RESCUE!!!

....Right?
@inkblurt

So the user experience practices are poised to assemble and save the day.
Kicking bad-guy butt & taking names. Right?

Do we really make things that
much better?

Totally swiped from
Peter Merholz’s
presentation from
yesterday.

@inkblurt

THREE QUESTIONS

Are we ...
1. working well with (and within) organizations making stuff?
2. really understanding user behavior?
3. fundamentally solving the right problems?

@inkblurt

A Meeting
Between People
Who are Part of an
Organization

This is
This is Sal Hawkeye
the cook for ‣ Chief Surgeon
‣ Recently given charge of mess hall
M*A*S*H unit ‣ Has a favorite family recipe for
4077 french toast

@inkblurt

This is a scene from MASH, the TV show.
We have Sal, who is the gruff cook for the unit.
And we have Hawkeye, the idealist chief surgeon, who was recently given charge of the mess hall
and has grand plans for making breakfast delightful for the troops -- a family recipe for french
toast.

@inkblurt

movie ... (Sorry no link: YouTube took this clip down after I uploaded it :( )

Whose side are you on?

Why?

@inkblurt

Disconnections ...

Hawkeye
• Wants what’s best for
the “users.”
• Passionate about a
vision of excellence.
• A fish out of water.

Sal
• Cooking for a war zone, not a restaurant.
• Is already in middle of preparing the
meal.
• Doesn’t have time or resources to engage
Hawkeye’s “best practices.”

@inkblurt

I have to confess I was on Hawkeye’s side when I ﬁrst saw this. I mean, he’s obviously the protagonist here, and how can
you not identify with his idealism?
>> He just wants what’s best for the users of the mess tent; he’s excited, passionate about a vision of excellence; and
he’s kind of a ﬁsh out of water -- an idealist doctor placed in a somewhat alien situation, trying to get these thick-
headed people to understand how great things could be if only they would listen.

But the more I thought about it, I had to start understanding things from Sal’s point of view.
>> He’s cooking in a war zone, not a cafe -- the business model of this establishment is winning battles, not Michelin
stars.
He’s already in the middle of preparing the meal, for goodness’ sake ... how is he supposed to suddenly change his
process to meet this guy’s demands?
And even though Hawkeye might have some great ideas ... some wonderful innovations ... there’s no time or budget to
make the happen.
The problem here isn’t that Hawkeye isn’t dedicated or that Sal isn’t interested in making people happy -- it’s a bigger,
systemic issue.

Disconnections ...

Focused on the “Users”
and the “Design”

Focused on Delivery
Who is designing
and meeting
the engagement?
Requirements

@inkblurt

I have to confess I was on Hawkeye’s side when I ﬁrst saw this. I mean, he’s obviously the protagonist here, and how can
you not identify with his idealism?
>> He just wants what’s best for the users of the mess tent; he’s excited, passionate about a vision of excellence; and
he’s kind of a ﬁsh out of water -- an idealist doctor placed in a somewhat alien situation, trying to get these thick-
headed people to understand how great things could be if only they would listen.

But the more I thought about it, I had to start understanding things from Sal’s point of view.
>> He’s cooking in a war zone, not a cafe -- the business model of this establishment is winning battles, not Michelin
stars.
He’s already in the middle of preparing the meal, for goodness’ sake ... how is he supposed to suddenly change his
process to meet this guy’s demands?
And even though Hawkeye might have some great ideas ... some wonderful innovations ... there’s no time or budget to
make the happen.
The problem here isn’t that Hawkeye isn’t dedicated or that Sal isn’t interested in making people happy -- it’s a bigger,
systemic issue.

Holistic View of Client/Employer Organization

Holistic View of User UX Focus

@inkblurt

We tend to focus almost exclusively on the view of the user.
But what about the organization we’re working in or for?

Holistic View of Client/Employer Organization

UX Focus

Holistic View of User

@inkblurt

Seems to me we have to broaden our scope. Some of us have already been doing this for years, but it’s always felt
peripheral, like something we’re doing on the sly.
Why don’t we bake this in as an official part of what user experience design is about?

THREE QUESTIONS

Are we ...
1. working well with (and within) organizations making stuff?
2. really understanding user behavior?
3. fundamentally solving the right problems?

@inkblurt

Another question -- do we really understand user behavior?

Fightin’ Words!!

Oh really?
You
Give an example
or STFU.

Ok. What about
“Goals”? Me

@inkblurt

GOAL!
@inkblurt
http://www.flickr.com/photos/epmallory3/6275268676/

The idea of a “goal” is a pretty specific concept -- it’s a defined, named object that we aim for.

In a goal-based sport, before everyone even gets on the field, they know what the goal is.

I contend that invoking the word “goal” comes with a lot of assumptions and baggage that can misdirect our work as designers.

@inkblurt

There’s a deep assumption in our profession’s cultural background that our users have explicitly, consciously articulated goals
that they’re working toward.
There’s been a progression of landmark works in the profession that organize design around user goals.
Now, I’m not saying these and other works that talk about goals are bad, they’re really excellent resources.
I bring them up to highlight the fact that the “goal” concept is central to a lot of high-proﬁle methods and education in our
community.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/

Training Procedure Goal (Pre-Defined Result)
A.Do this
B.Do that
C.Do this

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pearluvr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/foenix

@inkblurt

It’s understandable that we would inherit this idea of user goals, given the origins of the computer-human interaction discipline.

For a very long time, users worked in closed situations, where the whole system was constructed around pre-deﬁned goals, and
users were trained in procedures -- not unlike following a recipe to bake a cake.

People

Process Technology

@inkblurt

This venn diagram is in a million IT presentations and conference rooms.
It’s like the Holy Trinity of IT.
And who could disagree that these three things are both important and interdependent? It’s like saying water is wet.
But if you think about it, there’s a lot of stuff buried in those terms, especially that word “Process”

toolbox.com http://www.bai.berkeley.edu/

Technology People

@inkblurt

The way we often go about mapping human behavior is the same way we go about mapping system behavior. Namely: a linear,
highly rational, super-efficient process.
I’ve seen a lot of “customer journey” maps treat people the same way -- lots of happy paths, with very little room for people’s
complexities, messiness and irrationality.

BEHAVIOR IS ORGANIC
@inkblurt

But people don’t actually work that way -- they don’t behave like machines.
And now that we’re making software more often for more complex situations, for more people
who aren’t being paid to use it, and who have other options to turn to, we have to come to grips
with the fact that people need software that helps them in the messy complexity, rather than
software that assumes your life is very tidy, linear and planned.

“New Brain” “Mid-Brain”

“Old Brain”
from Neuro Web Design, S. Weinschenk, 2009; p 3

Amygdala

@inkblurt

In the last 20-30 years science has almost completely changed its mind about how our brains work and how we make decisions.
And we now know that most of our actions are actually driven by the ancient parts of our evolved brain.
We live in a frontal-lobe-driven illusion that we actually have deﬁned goals, when we rarely actually do.

Jonah Lehrer
Paul Dourish Marcia Bates

Dan Ariely
@inkblurt Lucy Suchman
There’s been a lot of work both academic and in the popular press that has been teaching us these new lessons about human
behavior. Here are just some of them.
Paul Dourish has been re-thinking context for years;
I just learned about the Lucy Suchman book yesterday and now wish I’d read it years ago,
and of course there’s Ariely & Lehrer have been writing very accessible books about how we really decide and behave.

THINKING
cognitive assumptions,
education, learning ability
Cognitive

DOING Physical
physical activity &
ability, habits,
preferences, sensory

Emotional

FEELING
psychological state,
anxiety, confidence,
stress, desire

@inkblurt

A big part of user experience design is based on understanding the whole person for whom we’re creating a system.
Rather than starting with “People, Process, Technology” all at once --
We start with People , their physical, cognitive and emotional characteristics, then we ﬁgure out how process and technology
should meet their needs.

Task
Task Need

Goal

Cognitive

Task
Physical

Situation Task

Need
Emotional
Need

Task Task Task

Task

@inkblurt

So if we really want to apply these lessons, we may want to re-think the focus on tasks and goals.

In UX design we like to think we’re considering all the dimensions of the person, and often we really do ... but we still tend to
focus on tasks and goals.

>> More often than not, the goal is only a fuzzy, distant possibility in the future ... and what we now know is that even if you
think you have a goal, it will likely shift and change as you ﬁnd your way to it.

>> ... because right now the user is just trying to muddle their way through a situation that’s emerged in their life. When you get
up to check the fridge, you rarely say to yourself “Self, I am hungry and therefore I need to eat” ... Your hunger may not even be a
fully self-aware state just yet.

>> at some point you may ﬁgure out that you have a particular need, and it may actually be one of many needs that spawn from
the situation you’re in ...
So, “I’m hungry” leads to “I NEED to eat something” ... and also, possibly “I NEED to get food because I don’t have any at home
right now” ... or even “I NEED to ask the person next to me if they’re hungry too so I won’t be rude”.

>> Only then does someone start to formulate the basic outlines of actual tasks to take care of those needs. And all of this
happens in a sort of blur, before you have fully rationalized what you’re doing.

So tell me ... How many requirements documents do you read that see the user this way?
Or better yet, how many Agile user stories have you read that acknowledge the situational origin of the user’s activity?
In waterfall or agile, or even in user testing, we normally jump straight to the task and small-bore functionality -- we break the
tasks up into silos, assuming they’ll magically make sense together when we launch a product.

Google Buzz

Situatio Need Task
n

Situation

Situation Need

Situation Need Need
Situation

MacObserve

@inkblurt

Want some real-world proof of my point?
When Google designed Buzz, they used an “eat your own dogfood” approach -- testing it with wider and wider circles of Google
Employees.
They designed lots of intricate tasks, but they were addressing the speciﬁc behaviors of people within Google -- not outside
friends or family.

>> When it was unleashed to the world, there was a huge clash ... the context was completely different, and the designed tasks
had repercussions Google simply hadn’t foreseen ... because they were invisible to them.

>> The result? Buzz was shuttered, and it earned Google 20 years of monitoring from the Federal Trade Commission.
(ref: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10454683-265.html)

Early Adopters ...
± 75 - 80% Male
± 60% Software Engineers
& Developers

So much fun to create
entity-relationship
diagrams of everyone
you know!

@inkblurt

Did Google learn its lesson about user context & behavior?
Well Google Plus has some improvements in terms of privacy,
but its early adopters leaned heavily toward software engineers who evidently ENJOY organizing everyone they know into an
entity-relationship diagram.

http://mashable.com/2011/07/14/google-plus-male/

What if it’s impossible to map everything out anymore?

@inkblurt

What if we just can’t map everything out?
Mapping stuff has always been big with user experience folks ... now we have service design and cross-channel customer
journey maps and such.
These are useful tools, but how well do they really scale for the world that’s coming at us so fast?
And do the maps lock us into ways of thinking about the problem that keep us from seeing other possibilities?

Every use case mapped
out for an artificial
brain.

Supposedly made in
our image.

ASIMO

@inkblurt

Can’t handle all the
possible edge cases.

@inkblurt

Use cases not mapped out.

The architecture of the body does most
of the “thinking.”

(The “brain” mainly manages sensors.)

“Big Dog”

@inkblurt

You can’t even kick
this thing over.

@inkblurt

We seem to want our machines ...

... to love us.
@inkblurt

I think we want machines that will love us. We see faces in clouds, and we want to see them in our software.

What if we’re trying too hard to make everything so human, we end up making stuff that will always disappoint us?

What if we really
don’t need machines
to love us...

...but just to fit us?

@inkblurt

What if what we really need is things that just FIT us?

I suspect we’re going to eventually ﬁnd out that software works best when we think of it as an extension of ourselves for
connecting with the world, and connecting with others in the world, rather than an automated version of us.

I wonder what would happen if we framed more of our work that way? Would we have more success?

Happiness machines

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (13)

Ähnlich wie Happiness machines

Ähnlich wie Happiness machines (20)

Mehr von Andrew Hinton

Mehr von Andrew Hinton (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Happiness machines