Quantative vs. Qualitative Research and Data: Inspiring Great Design

I read an article recently that touched on the difference in effectiveness of quantitative data versus qualitative data in the overall UX design process. The article can be found here (http://tinyurl.com/62gj87x), for those that want to read it (see point number 6, "Using quantitative data to inform decision-making can be uncomfortable for UX professionals").

In my years of design Web sites, apps, software, and other types of digital experiences, I will say that I'm driven by research to inspire the design process. What do we know about who we are designing for? Who are these users? How do they behave? What is the general contextual environment for use?

But I will also say that the value of quantitative research techniques and data is almost always never that helpful to the design process. For me, as a UX professional, my focus has been much more on qualitative data sets and models, and qualitative research techniques.

Quantitative data sets is never particularly inspirational. Focus groups may deliver useful information on what a group thinks, but not how a single user will behave. For that, please just give me a handful of one-on-one research or participatory design sessions. Sitting with an actual users, in front of a prototype of any kind (hand sketch, full design interactive prototype, anything) is infinitely more helpful to delivering a great UX design than any online survey, focus group, clickstream analysis, or marketing segmentation.

Unfortunately, though, so many clients still distrust research samples that are not "statistically significant". For that data, I look to later-stage design testing (to evaluate and articulate true business effectiveness of the new design).

Quantitative or Qualitative? Definitely Qualitative. Smaller, richer data sets are always more insightful and inspiring to the Experience Design process

Role of Empathy in Design, and Leadership

I love this article by David Kelly of IDEO on the role of empathy in managing others:

http://www.fastcompany.com/1746447/qa-with-david-kelley-of-ideo

As any UX designer will tell you, good UX Design requires a good understanding of who you are designing for: user centered design is predicated on insight into the target user (who they are, how they behave, and even their attitudes). UCD methods have lots of techniques to document that insight, including profiles, personas, scenarios, experience models, and others. As part of that insight, empathy is foundational component, although one that is sometimes harder to articulate. However, it's critical that a design team identify with a user's context (their needs, behaviors, and attitudes). It's that identification that is based also upon empathy: seeing the design challenge from the perspective of a user.

I love Kelley' points about how this relates to managing others. Also, I think his points have particular relevance to managing the wide range of others typically involved in the development UXD work. UXD work involves such a wide range of disciplines and practices (IA's and Interaction Designers, Visual Designers, Technologists, Content Strategists, etc) that it's critical for a the manager of the design process to identify and empathize with the various team member's perspectives on the design challenge (how an IA sees the challenge as compared to the Site Developer). UXD is such a particularly inter-disciplinary design process, that great solutions overall are based upon getting great ideas and input from all of the independent team members. And, in order to do that, empathy for those creatives is definitely required.

Waste of Money

http://www.fastcompany.com/1688721/will-wpps-content-project-save-online-pay-services?partner=homepage_newsletter

How much is WPP getting for this "experiment"?
Subscribing for content 'en masse'? Really?

A 'mobile wallet' for content? Because mobile wallets have been so successful.

If users aren't paying for content now, they're not going to pay for content 'en masse'. Experience has shown that users will pay for content they really want and value-- i don't think that extends to a broad collection of content properties in this "content project".

This model might work for magazine houses like Conde Nast or Hearst, but that's about it, in my view.

How to NOT leverage social media: BP

I have many things to say about how BP is handling the crisis in the Gulf, but I'd like to focus on just one: BP's solicitation of ideas from the public for how to solve the problem in the Gulf.

On BP.com, BP asks, "Do you have ideas to help us?: call +1 281 366 5511"

In a crisis like this one, BP should not be asking the public for suggestions for how to fix the problem. This is a crisis for the experts. Honestly, do we think the solution to this engineering catastrophe is going to come from the public?

What does BP think it will gain by openly asking the public for suggestions? This is not Starbucks looking for product or service ideas from its customers. Do airlines poll the public when one their aircraft lose an engine: "Our London-bound 747 is in trouble: have ideas for averting a crash?"

There is a time and a place for enlisting the public into the ongoing management of your business: BP, this is not one of them.

For more on this topic, read the comments below this short article:

http://gawker.com/5550938/we-called-bp-and-offered-some-ideas-to-fix-the-oil-spill

Subscription models and the Semantic Web

There is a very interesting article in today's Wall Street Journal on Rupert Murdoch's soon-to-be-released subscription model, which will include the ability to subscribe to content that comes from publications other than those owned by Murdoch himself.

This topic came up a few times in my recent panel at Digital Hollywood-- the idea of being able to subscribe to a content "feed", in addition to being able to subscribe to a publication. For example: today I can subscribe to the Wall Street Journal (publication based subscription, on and offline), but sometime soon we will also have the ability to subscribe to topic-based feed, say everything "Insurance Industry" related. Folks who work in the Insurance industry can get all of the WSJ content relating to that industry, plus Barron's and Factiva data (other Murdoch-owned content sources), AND content coming from the Associated Press, NY Times and insurance-industry sources.

It's a melding of Web 3.0 ('semantic web') concepts (which involve breaking content into relevant topics) and innovative subscription models that will be a win-win for users and content providers.

I think Dow Jones is the leader in this area... and has been for some time (look at their current "Pro" subscription service on WSJ.com).

Here's the article:

http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100519/rupert-murdoch-still-needs-allies-his-digital-news-crusade/

Myth | Internet = free content

I've been thinking quite a bit about the hot topic of subscription services and pay walls... not just because it's a hot topic within digital publishing, but also because it's a topic of an upcoming panel i'm on at Digital Hollywood:

http://www.digitalhollywood.com/10DHSpring/DH10Sp-Wed21.html

Regarding pay-walls and pay-per-article services (specifically like the one that the New York Times is considering). Has any pay-per-use model ever been that successful? You want customers to consume as much as your content as possible: THAT's called engagement. But by charging them per article, it encourages them to find that content in another form. Remember the old days of AOL, when user's monthly bills were hundreds of dollars (for the many hours they spent online). It may have helped AOL's revenues for the short term, but it didn't do them any favors in the long-term (and gave rise to newer business like Earthlink and flat-rate Internet ISPs). Quickly AOL turned to a flat-rate monthly amount (with a variety of subscription models).

I think publishers need to find a way to ENCOURAGE users to consume content, without charging them a "per-use" fee. It's detrimental to the behavior they are trying to encourage.

Myth | The Internet is anonymous part II

was just reading Martin Nisenholtz's address to the University of Pennsylvania, where he says:

"Facebook works because it is rooted in identity. It is an exercise of one’s ego online....This offers something important to publishers. For the first time, we can populate our site with users who come to us as themselves, not merely as anonymous screen names."

Makes me think of the topic i was writing about a couple of weeks ago: the enormous popularity of Facebook has helped the Internet grow up. What i mean is that the real-world authentication that Facebook has brought about has caused a step change in any site that is using Facebook Connect. So the Facebook ripple is continued to be felt in communities that are leveraging Facebook Connect. And all of these communities are enabling communities of users that are made up of authenticated, real-world users.

"grown-up"=the shift from anonymity to real identity.

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-nyts-nisenholtzs-speech-the-importance-of-engagement/