ux

Guess who? (Kill the Agile Buddha)

  • Tuesday, 25 January, 2011
  • By:

Guess who am I now.

I’m in a supermarket, I’m pushing a trolley. I’m putting items into it. I just need some bread and I’ll be going to the checkout. Who am I?
I’m in a bank, queueing up in front a machine for depositing cheques. I’ve got a couple of cheques I need to pay in. Who am I?
I’m in an electronics store. I want a new printer but I’m not sure what’s the best for me, I’m looking for someone to help me. Who am I?

Or maybe what am I?

I am a customer.

Aren’t I?

Business language backs up my assumption. The employee at the supermarket checkout is called a Customer Service Rep, my personal (customer) details are held in the banks Customer Relationship Management system, in the electronics store I’m looking for Customer Support. And after I’ve bought my printer I’ll be asked to complete a Customer Satisfaction Survey.

So everything indicates that I am a customer. Or that is what I thought I was.

Apparently not according to the Scrum zealots.

At Agile 2009 Tom Illmensee presented a paper “5 Users Every Friday: A Case Study in Applied Research”. It describes how an eCommerce division of an electronics retailers introduced agile and how the user experience team adapted to agile. It starts by describing how their initial forays into agile were deemed successful. It was collaborative with the disciplines well integrated; “whiteboard wireframes, minimal documentation, and product demos. Usability tests with paper and semi- functional prototypes were conducted with shoppers each sprint”. More than that, the whole team enjoyed the experience. A decision was made to “take agile to the next level”. The next level was the introduction of a consulting firm who brought in scrum training. The scrum dogma was painful to adopt, but they got there in the end. But there’s a line in the paper that made me angry:

“The peculiar semantics of Scrum were especially confusing at first. In retail customers were people who bought things like stereos and flat-screen TVs. Not anymore. Agile had changed the definition of perhaps the most important word in our business environment: customers were now internal product owners. Customers would now be referred to as shoppers—or users.”

I’ll write that again. Customers (the people who the business depended upon, and “the most important word in [their] business environment”) would now be called shoppers. Or users. Because in agile, customers are internal product owners.

Sorry, these consultants, these agile zealots, these software egos have got too big for their boots. Dan North, pulling to pieces the nonsense of ‘software craftsmanship’ put’s it eloquently:

Software Craftsmanship risks putting the software at the centre rather than the benefit the software is supposed to deliver, mostly because we are romantics with big egos. Programming is about automating work like crunching data, processing and presenting information, or controlling and automating machines.

Software at the centre rather than the benefit the software is supposed to deliver. Software is the means to an end, not the end itself. If a certified scrum master (certified master based on two days training and a multiple choice questionnaire, now there’s a farce) tries to rewrite your business language, tries to tell you that your domain language is wrong, show him or her the door.

There’s a budhist saying “If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him“.

If you see agile in your workplace, kill it.

Why kill the Buddha? because the Buddha becomes an object, your own illusion of what it is. And it this illusion is wrong.  To turn the Buddha into a religious fetish is to miss the essence of what he taught. Killing the Buddha means taking responsibility for yourself.  Same with Agile; to turn agile, to turn software development into a religious fetish is to miss the point of what it is all about.

===

I presented on the customer theme a while ago, here are the slides.

And here’s me narating the slides on google video.

Thinking inspired by the Agile UX retreat

  • Friday, 30 July, 2010
  • By:

In the quest to get agile and UX to get along better, and following successful retreats in the US, last weekend Johanna Kollmann brought together a bunch of agile and UX folk for an Agile UX retreat in London sponsored by.  Giving up a weekend was hard, but was worth it, meeting a great bunch of people and sharing thoughts and experiences from the agile and UX camps.  So what did I learn.

Rethink what we do

Coming out of the retreat it is clear that the way we do UX today needs a fundamental rethink.  As UX professionals we have fought long and hard to gain credibility and traction in organisations for what we do, but we need to be ready to evolve and embrace the changing world around us.  A world where IT no longer needs to have detailed specifications signed off before development start.  We no longer have the need (or the luxury) to do the up-front research that we are used to doing.  We no longer need to sign-off detailed wireframes before handing them over the fence to the developers to implement.  Software today really is soft.  It is more about creativity than engineering (see below).  The serialisation of activities is inefficient and wasteful.  It is time to ask how do we focus upon doing what is needed and when, working in parallel and infecting the whole system with user-centric thinking rather than siloing it into the upfront design.  This after all is what systems ergonomics is about; a forerunner to UCD that we know today, thinking about the macro (a broad system view of design, examining organizational environments, culture, history, and work goals) as well as the micro (fitting the task to the human).

But I am digressing from what I wanted to blog about, the Agile UX retreat.  Some key takeaways for me included Anders Ramsey‘s analogies to the restaurant and the theatre.

Thinking analogies

Think of a restaurant.  We have the kitchen, the back room world that is focussed upon delivering consistency of servings.  Everything in the kitchen is utilitarian, serving the purpose to meet this goal.  At the front of the restaurant we have the dining room where the dishes (of consistent(ly good) quality) made in the kitchen are served.  The dining room is all about the ambiance.  Quality here is far more subjective, but a successful restauranteur will be as passionate about the dining room as she is about the food that is cooked in the kitchen.  This is the way that software is all too often built, with the kitchen and dining room being separate entities, however the way they are organised, paid for and owned, there’s little communication between the two.  To quote another Ramsey, Gordon, it is a Kitchen Nightmare.

Anders’ second analogy to consider was the Theatre.  An overly simplistic representation is that the director starts with a script.  From the script he iterates the production.  The producer’s role is to provide the director with what he needs to make the production successful.  Just be ready for the premiere which is on a fixed date.  In the lead up to the premiere the director assembles the cast, the crew and they rehearse.  They’ve got a strawman plan to work from – MacBeth, but how they implement it will evolve according to the stage, actors and artistic direction the director wants to take.  The producer does not care how or when they rehearse, she is only concerned with the success of the end goal.  As they rehearse they increase the fidelity of their performance until they premiere (go live).  but even then they are not done.  They are happy to accommodate changes to the performance, and if something different happens that clearly delights the audience they will happliy incorporate that into future performances (releases).  Sure, the audience is seeing a performance of Shakespere’s MacBeth, but it is a unique performance that has taken the initial plan and evolved as it has been created.

And so should we approach software development.  Not as an exercise in engineering, where our raw materials are fixed and highly stable, but as a creative artform, where our iterations are rehearsals for the premier and ongoing performances.

Thinking tensions

I’m sure there are more, but some examples of tensions that emerge when we try to work together:

AUX promotes rapid open communication and sharing but designers fear sharing.  (They worry early designs will be seized upon before they are ready)
AUX promotes visualisation and use of walls but corporate policies prevent this
AUX promptes doing just enough, just in time but a legacy of deliverable expectations gets in the way (research is rarely bought by the developers who will ultimately consume it).

Thinking people

At the end of the day, success comes down to people.  Agile zealots have done Agile no favours when they bang on about business value and see anything other than code as waste.  Good product design needs vision, it needs research to ensure you are building the right thing for the right people.  No one has the right to tell a UXer that testing ideas or building a prototype or undertaking research is waste if it is right for their context.  But it doesn’t need to take the time it does today.  The UX community needs to get out and spend time with the development community and understand how software is built today.  UXers need to start seeing developers as partners rather than consumers of what they do.  What if we aligned our teams around the products we build rather than the functional silos that the roles describe?  Bringing agile and UX together is more fundamental than arguing about the process (one iteration in front, washing machine cycles etc), it is about fundamentally changing the way we build software; see it as a team activity that works collaboratively rather than a factory production line with process gates and separation of responsibility.

More on the #auxretreat twitter feed

Usability reports (usability rant part 2)

  • Wednesday, 21 April, 2010
  • By:

Following on from yesterdays post about the usability process, today I’ll focus on the deliverables, the usability report and my contention that they are rarely grounded in any understanding of the project reality. Here are a couple of examples of usability findings from a (well respected) usability company’s report:

Finding: It was said that the ability to filter [the search results] would be important.
Recommendation: Add check boxes so the customer can choose between [result types]

“Add check boxes”.

That’s easy to say, three words “Add. Check. Boxes”. But what if the particular search engine the team are using does not allow such functionality?  Or such functionality will take significant effort to build.

Finding: When probed about the use of breadcrumbs on the site, 2 participants were confused by the structure that was displayed.
Recommendation: Consider using chevrons [for the breadcrumb] to better covey to the customer that these words show the journey they have been on [rather than ‘/’]

Let’s leave aside the basis of this recommendation; two participants commenting that they weren’t sure about the use of the ‘/’ (this sounds more like it is reinforcing the authors prejudice against the use of / in a breadcrumb and their preference for the ‘>’ symbol).  And let’s also leave aside the fact that it has taken three weeks to let the development team to know that.

It is presented on a powerpoint slide with a screen shot of the breadcrumb and a mockup of a preferred solution, e.g. “Home > UK > South East > News” (Rather than Home / UK / South East / News”).  I’d estimate this took twenty minutes elapsed time to produce this slide. It will take a further ten minutes to discuss when the page is presented to the product owner. And the product owner will spend ten minutes explaining it to the IT project manager who will take ten minutes to explain it to the developers to make the change…

Save your money

Usability testing is not a science. Investing in one or two formal usability tests is almost certainly money badly spent. The Cue reports give a good insight into this.  For example, they asked seventeen experienced professional teams to independently evaluate the usability of the website for the Hotel Pennsylvania in New York.

The teams reported 340 different usability issues. Only nine of these issues were reported by more than half of the teams, while 205 issues (60%) were uniquely reported, that is, no two teams reported the same issue. Sixty-one of the 205 uniquely reported issues were classified as serious or critical problems.

They go on to state…

The study also shows that there was no practical difference between the results obtained from usability testing and expert reviews for the issues identified.

This suggests getting a UI expert into the project team is probably money better spent than employing the usability company (and supports my assertion that usability testing is often just validating the work of a professional).  And when you do get a usability company to report back, as I’ve discussed above, don’t hold your breath for the quality or usefulness of the results:

They found that only 17% of comments in usability reports contained recommendations that were both useful and usable, and many recommendations were not usable at all [source]

So if the recommendations you get from one company are likely to be different to the recommendations from another; if the report is going to be full of recommendations that are impractical and not implementable; if an expert can pick up usability problems that usability testing can, why bother with the usability company testing at the back end of the project?  Indeed, why bother with the usability company at all?  Get an interaction designer on the project from the outset (call them an information architect, user centred designer ,UX person if you want), get them testing ideas and interfaces informally and regularly throughout, and truly embed usability into the project itself, not as an add-on process and report.

Usability rant part 3>