A UX State of Mind

Users of computing technology used to be categorizable into either the elite bourgeoisie of programmers and tech enthusiasts who built their own computers or the mainstream proletariat whose computer literacy was just enough to type e-mails and use some basic spreadsheet functions. With computing (and especially the internet) having become as entwined in human activity as it has, a third “class” of computer user has developed. In short, we’re looking at a collective user pool made up of 1) creators, 2) consumers, and 3) power consumers.

Users of computing tech tend to fall into one of three groups: 1) Creator, 2) Consumer, and 3) Power Consumer. (Click to enlarge)

Now, before I jump into the topic, I would like to say that these groups are not homogeneous. Within each of these groupings  lies a wide spectrum of “computer literacy,” tastes, tendencies, and characteristics. Some parts of these groups could even be considered to overlap. In any case, this is only my simplified model to help me understand what to expect from users.

How Things Were

Before computing was so mainstream, you basically just had the people who made computers and wrote programs (creators) and the people to whom they sold computers and software (consumers). Creators knew a whole lot, and consumers knew very little, so the knowledge gap between the two groups was huge.

Now Computers Are Everywhere

Almost everybody has some form of computer now or has at least been exposed to computing technology. In the developed world, we have our home and/or work computers, maybe a smartphone or feature phone with Java games, a digital music player, home cinema setup with HDTV, and countless embedded computers in places we don’t even notice them anymore. The BoP is seeing amazing growth in mobile phone adoption, so people in developing areas are also becoming increasingly exposed to computing tech.

What this means is that the gap is closing, technology is democratizing many of the activities which could only be carried out by professionals with special equipment, and a third archetype of user is emerging. This third archetype is known as N-Gen, the Net-Generation, and Generation Y, but I prefer to focus on behavioral instead of demographic characteristics and call them power consumers.

Here are some of those behavioral characteristics I mentioned:

• Like good pilots, they may not understand the mechanics of the equipment they’re using, but they can use the hell out of it.
• These users are imaginative and innovative, often coming up with creative and unforeseen ways to use the things they have.
• They tend to be socially oriented in that most of their usage of computing tech has some social aspect.
• Consumers often become power consumers as soon as computing tech reaches a sufficient level of relevance to justify the extra effort of learning more.

That last point provides my basis for departing from the generation-based nomenclature typically used for this type of user. By thinking of them as Net-Gen’ners, designers and developers automatically have a picture of tweens, teens, and twenty-somethings in their heads which automatically creates a set of assumptions which are then falsely applied. This kind of thinking also excludes users of other demographics who exhibit the same behavior and characteristics.

Why Is That So Bad?

By lumping all power consumers into the “young user” demographic category, which marketers have for so long targeted as the new favorite retail demographic, we forget the needs of older people and those in emerging markets at the BoP. Many ICT4D‘ers believe that tech consumers in such areas are severely limited by either the technology available to them, their ability to use that technology, or both. Projects like Gary Marsden’s Big Board show that users in developing areas tend to innovate beyond designers’ expectations, behavior that shows a level of savoir-faire (ok savvy then) beyond that of “just” a consumer.

Why This Is Relevant

We as designers can cater to these users by better tailoring computing technology to their needs. Do you remember the i-Opener from the 90′s? It was an inexpensive machine that just did internet. It was perfect for people like my aunt, who at the time was pretty darn spiffy for having an e-mail address and using it. The best part, it was $99; she didn’t have to pay for unnecessary computer stuff she’d never use, and it was just enough for her.

Mobile phone manufaturers are also going this route by making products for ”…younger users who are beyond the needs of a feature phone but really don’t need a full-fledged smartphone…” – Christina Warren. Joints like the Sidekick, Kin, and (my favorite) the Puma Phone offer power consumers the features they want for a lesser price than a fully-tricked-out smartphone would cost.

By trimming the fat, so to speak, we can optimize the price-to-value ratio of a product, which is especially important on the other half of the digital divide. Poor people in developing areas and in the developed world make big sacrifices to afford what they need to use computing technology that is relevant for them. Let’s please not forget them while getting caught up in “tween-fever!”

Primum non nocere

First, do no harm. This phrase represents the concept of non-maleficence in medicine, purporting that it is sometimes better to do nothing than to do something harmful. It is a core tenet of medical ethics, taught to medical students around the world.

So why don’t design students get mandatory classes in design ethics?

Whitney Hess wrote a great article called, Guiding Principles for UX Designers, the title of which is self-explanatory. Her #2 guideline, don’t hurt anyone, is reminiscent of the Hippocratic Oath (again, medicine) but her explanation is much more general than what I’m getting at here.

First, Do Not Overdesign

Non-maleficence in medical ethics is in place to prevent medical practicioners from intervening when the intervention risks causing more harm than help. Design intervenes in the way things work, look, feel, behave, etc. by making decisions for users, consumers, clients, etc. so that they have to make the fewest decisions possible. That’s why we learn design, so that we know which decisions we should be making for other people.

Overdesign then, in this context, is making decisions for a user that impede the user’s freedom in ways that detract from her user experience.

Notice the two components there:

1. Impeding users’ freedom
2. Detracting from user experience

Component number two is important, because I am not trying to denounce the practice of impeding users’ freedom across the board. That’s what designers do. It only becomes a problem when users actually want or need the “freedoms” we “design away.”

Apple, for example, uses its closed iPhone/iPod+iTunes platform as a unique selling point. It takes away the freedom of downloading apps and music wherever you want but gives users added security and a more robust user experience. This is like my mom cooking me dinner: I have no “freedom” in what she makes, but I  know for (damn) sure that it’s going to taste wonderful. Linux operating systems, on the other hand, are more like cooking yourself; you have ultimate freedom in what you have for dinner, but it will only be good if you are skilled enough to make it good.

Dinner and Hegel’s Dialectic

Different UX philosophies imply different power structures between user and system. N.B. The term "casual user" refers not to users who use their systems casually but to those, who do not want to configure things, they want their systems to "just work."

Hegel’s Master-slave Dialectic (Herrschaft und Knechtschaft) illustrates how a Master is dependent on her slave on multiple levels. The principle is applicable to almost any relationship where one entity performs actions to the benefit of another; they might as well also be referred to as Lord-servant, Teacher-learner, Citizen-government, or User-system.

To reuse my example above, if my mom is cooking for me, I don’t have the freedom to choose what is served for dinner. This means that even though my mom is technically the “slave” (only because she’s cooking dinner) in this example, she is in the real position of power, because she makes the decisions on what I will eat. I give up my freedom willingly to have a wonderful meal. Once I learn more about cooking, I may want to cook for myself, trading ease-of-dinner for the freedom to customize and eat what I want.

So What Does That Mean for Design?

As designers, we are in charge of crafting systems for Users or slaves for Masters. In many instances, especially when we are designing for users who crave simplicity and ease-of-use above all else, because they do not have the time or patience to customize.

People trust us designers to make decisions to improve their lives.

In that, we have power. With great power comes great responsibility. It is our duty to take this power seriously and not, though negligence, misplaced good intentions, fear, or control-freakiness, abuse our power by overdesigning and making so many decisions for users that their experience is constrained and frustrating.

As a designer, I hereby swear to first, do not overdesign.

Yeah, that means doing my best to strike the perfect balance between simplicity and function, security and freedom. That’s where the art part of design comes in, and that’s why design is fun. If we had a designer’s oath, what do you think should be in it?

Salsa Dancers in a Club

When we try to understand things, we model them so that we can more easily comprehend the elements of concepts and phenomena that we need to accomplish our goals. Why then do we not apply the idea of modeling more often in learning and communication?

What is a Model, Really?

A model is a simplified representation of some reality, designed to allow us to more quickly comprehend that reality. A mental model, on the other hand, is the representation of that reality in our minds. The big difference is that mental models are inside our heads, and we cannot share them, whereas other models are explicit; they can be seen, shared, and compared.

Models are representations of reality we use to enhance our mental models of reality. As our mental models become more detailed and accurate, we learn.

Take a car as an example. A car is an system that exists in reality. A child has a very simple mental model of a car that comprises of a general idea of what it is for and perhaps how to open doors and windows. When a person learns to drive, s/he increases the detail of her/his mental model by using explicit models like driving manuals and computer simulation programs. A driver’s mental model thus includes things like how to start the car, turn radius, clutch operation, etc.

Auto mechanics have even more detailed mental models of a car, because they know more about its inner workings. A driver knows that when s/he turns the steering wheel, the wheels turn as well. A mechanic knows that turning the steering wheel turns the steering shaft, which turns the pinion, which moves the rack, which pulls the tie rod and steering arm, etc. The mechanic’s mental model is more detailed than the driver’s, because s/he needs to know more to fix cars than the driver needs to know to drive them.

Using Models to Communicate

Since mental models are inside our heads, we need to use explicit models when trying to share our mental models of things with others. This is communication, and teachers do it by drawing on chalkboards, designers do it by drawing sketches and building prototypes, and parents do it when they tell their kids they were flown in by a stork.

Learning a simple model of a concept in the beginning makes learning at an advanced stage easier than trying to learn advanced concepts from the start.

The problem is that models are not always used where they could be useful. In an educational or training context, some classmates of mine and I discussed whether it is better to learn how to do something the “right way” from the beginning (what I call here straight-up learning) or to learn an easy way first to master the basic concepts, then learn the “right way” later. The discussion was in salsa class, and the debate was if it is better to learn an easy version of the Salsa Casino step before learning the real step or to learn the real step from the beginning.

My position is that the learning curve is steeper (faster skill aquisition across time) with learning the model first. Indeed, when we learned the advanced step, there was a sort of delay caused by having to first “unlearn” our learned habit of the easy step. However, with the easier step in the beginning, we were already able to learn some figures and turns before learning the advanced step. From the perspective of learning experience, it would have been much more frustrating and have delayed the reward of successful learning if we would have been taught the advanced step from the beginning.

So, What Does That Mean?

When designing a training course or class curriculum for complex concepts or procedural knowledge, please consider doing your learners/students the favor of teaching them a simplified version of the concept before throwing them into the deep end immediately. They’ll learn faster and have a better time doing it!

Furthermore, when communicating, try to remember that the closer your explanation or model is to your audience’s mental model, the quicker and better they’ll understand what you’re trying to say. Happy modeling!