Ghost in the Pixel

A popular phrase of late (I think due to the wildfire-like spread of dev methodologies like Agile and Lean UX) is “MVP” or “Minimum Viable Product”…i.e., what’s the most basic release of the product for external use to gauge customer reactions, validations, learnings, so you can adjust quickly for subsequent iterations. It’s a baseline, something that’s of raw functionality, to embody the gist of what this brave, risk-taking, ambitious crew of engineers, marketers, designers has sought to unleash upon the world.

MVP = Not perfectly polished but “just enough” to make a small impact and provoke, inspire, catch fire (plus all the aforesaid Lean UX goals). Hmm, sounds quite a bit like Herb Simon’s infamous “satisficing” concept, doesn’t it? ;-) Just enough that’s necessary and sufficient to achieve some kind of pragmatic goal, to help focus and scope the very real tactical and tangible efforts of people, time, budget, resources…towards a very real target (that’s measurable and trackable). After all, all your product stakeholders (including investors, partners, vendors, suppliers, etc.) are deliberately taking a big chance with you and counting their minutes and dollars too. Whew! No pressure, right?? ;-)

However, while “MVP” is arguably a very practical structure to impose, I can’t help but feel quite disillusioned by this notion.

As designers we should be optimists! Why do we settle for the “MVP” as a “MINIMUM viable product” rather than aspire towards what I like to call, the “MAXIMUM viable promise”. After all, that’s what you’re really delivering, is a promise predicated upon your company & product brand, a set of expectations of what could be, that should dramatically shift customer perceptions and understanding of what’s possible by virtue of your offering. Imagine if Dyson, Nest, Tesla did just a basic “minimum” viability goal. They all produced something bold, powerful, inspiring, and yes still functionally viable…indeed it was the maximum viability given their constraints, compromises, conditions for their initial products.

Yes, we must ship something real and justifiably viable but still embodies the kernel of the soul, the essence of what makes it…what IT needs to be, distinctive, engaging, resonant with customer goals and values. That kernel may be expressed in terms of visual style, specific controls and affordances, overall brand and messaging, as well as raw brute-force functionality, expressed in their totality, with nuanced craft and quality. It should embody a promise of what should be, not just what can be built for expediency sake. Else you risk going “too low” and building something so minimally viable that it’s rudimentary, unimpressive, and basically a “so what” falling short of the reaction you truly want: exultation, gratitude, and delight. Aim for the promise, not just a mere product…this relates to the brand voice and perception, projected into the user’s mind and enhanced by their direct interaction with the offering you are creating.

 

So what does it really mean to “consumerize” an enterprise software product? This has become quite a buzzword lately, even spawning an entire conference around the topic in downtown SF a few months ago.

Indeed, Citrix CEO Mark Templeton has previously identified “three pillars” that serve as the foundation of our ongoing strategy of design excellence: simplify + unify + consumerize. The first two seem pretty straight-forward enough–simplify the literally thousands of options/menus/settings/features, and bring family-like coherence to the variously acquired products– but that last word, “consumerize”…Hmm! Is it just a buzzword to get board members excited? Is it more than simply making an interface visually “stylish” a la Apple or Metro (per whatever the style du jour happens to be)?

For me, “consumerizing” enterprise software has been a personal pursuit for quite some time, since my days back at Oracle, Adobe, Cisco, etc. I’ve always been inspired to inject nuanced humanity, aesthetic virtue, and emotionally resonant story into the tedious humdrum of brutally mechanistic business process systems. Why not strive to breathe life into work-based interfaces, and thus delight into daily routines? Why can’t work be fun? :-)

 

More specifically, to consumerize enterprise apps means for me…

* Basing product decisions upon modern, evolving expectations shaped by consumer interfaces and brands, particularly in terms of performance, usability, functionality, style, and story (the argument as to how this product or service weaves into my daily rhythms). From video game consoles to smartphones to home AV systems to in-car telematics–People are used to certain things at home, why not apply them at work too? Less to learn, more to enjoy! Makes sense, no?

* Regarding the “user” as an emotive, dynamic human being who seeks a meaningful, engaging life, not just a banal data point processed through arcane systems for pure efficiency’s sake. This goes for IT Admins too. Hey, they use consumer tech/devices too right? As a former mentor said, “There’s no such thing as enterprise users, because we’re all consumers.” Ask any IT Admin or Program Manager and they’ll almost always cite Disney, Virgin, Lexus, Ritz-Carlton, etc. as benchmarks for stellar experiences that respect the human being.

* Crafting elegant, beautiful Interface visuals that look like a million bucks. (Since that’s how much the company likely paid ;-) Yes it’s about creating a stylish, attractive visual language system that carries across device form factors and platforms in a compelling yet coherent manner. This shapes an emotional relationship that impacts perception of utility and value.

* Applying fast, fluid behaviors & animations, with visual feedback, which leverage modern, patternizable consumer widget sets and technologies (CSS 3, Javascript libraries, HTML 5, mobile touch frameworks, etc.). Again, it’s about achieving expectations folks have with consumer tech back at home, but for work too. Gotta be snappy and responsive everywhere!

* Shaping a friendly, approachable verbal language and textual tone that fits the times, culture, generation. Why sound like a draconian android from 1970s with arcane error messages or stern instructions? We should use wit and charm, and thus create a distinct personality that evokes the product brand in a positive, reinforcing manner, not some opaque scolding “system”.

* Considering the total, integrated lifestyle and life cycles of the user, her context, and primary activities across multiple devices and situations. Creating something that truly blends into the work / life continuum of productivity (what Citrix CEO calls “life slicing”), so it all doesn’t feel like “going to work” or alien intrusion that breaks apart the flow of activity with staccato moments of confusion, disappointment, frustration, etc. (This echoes John Dewey’s points about distracted experiences in Art as Experience)

 

Stepping back, in my view consumerization is influenced by the following factors, shaped by user research and design activities happening in concert:

– The Environment: locational context of use / types of devices / transient & emergent behaviors, mindful of people on the go, work shifting from non-traditional office spaces, etc.

– The Consumer: personal attitudes and expectations about the task, how it’s delivered, how it’s consumed, and thus useful in daily living (life-slicing metaphor) from a truly human POV, not some binary data processor.

– The Embodiment: visual interface style, interactive motions, contextual smarts, language tone, all add up to a compelling offering worthy of engagement.

Recently while interviewing a visual designer candidate at our office, I asked if he could just briefly articulate the stylistic differences among his samples of icons & graphics–their qualities and attributes, the overall aesthetic character, themes, and motifs. He had quite some difficulty verbalizing this, which was unfortunate. For if you’re going to be a successful designer on a design team, you’ve got to be able to explain your design choices, especially visual styles, with clear defensible, and meaningful reasoning. I believe this is true for visual designers and UI or interaction designers as well. (see my earlier posts about emerging hybrids of visual and interaction)

Indeed, to be a successful, effective designer (and leader) shaping a new product design, it’s necessary to be able to do these three things in terms of “style”:

1. Observe: Must develop and have a certain aesthetic sensitivity for observing and truly paying attention to, what’s around you across diverse media, both physical and digital forms. Do you notice the nuances, subtleties, nooks & crannies…the textures, lighting, patterns, forms, colors? How they vary across contexts or form factors (i.e., from phone to tablet to desktop to HDTV). Having an eye for detail at an intuitive level of sensing, honed by years of practice and rigorous experience, is immensely valuable.

2. Articulate: Are you able to explain the defining characteristics, qualities, attributes, and deeper values suggestive of such styles, beyond generic non-phrases like “it’s cool” or “it’s clean”. What does that style mean, how does it impact perceived functionality, usability, value, etc. How does the style convey a personality, a tone of voice, an attitude for how the user should approach the product?

3. Create: And finally creating a distinct visual design language and coherent, flexible system accordingly, blending ideas and attitudes from a range of sources: the past, the present, and cross-disciplinary fields (biology, fine arts, engineering, theater, etc.), anticipating what’s next.

A visual style is a visceral argument of how one should live their life, a declaration of certain values advocated (with other values dismissed or ignored). It’s a projection of tone, quality, mood. A reflection of the product’s personality, tone of voice conveyed into the ambiguous space of marketing / communication / interpretation. A style speaks to the mood of the times (zeitgeist), reflecting the social & cultural vibe at the moment, while anticipating what’s on the horizon, deftly echoing emerging trends and tastes.

If you’re going to be a strong, effective designer worthy of shaping and improving “the human condition”, as UX professionals are often self-described to do, grokking “style” is a vital element of that noble pursuit.

 

Recently I attended this thoroughly informative talk sponsored by Salesforce UX at their offices in SF Downtown, led by Thomas Vander Wal, a social platform strategist. Thomas, by his own account has been on the social scene since 1996, including a longtime community manager for a CompuServe forum for lawyers. His professional career trajectory has included three major turns of “social” in digital media: Groupware (1990s), Knowledge Management (1990s-2000s), and current Web 2.0 Social (mid-2000s). Below are my key takeaways…Enjoy!

(Here are the slides posted on SlideShare: http://www.slideshare.net/vanderwal/beyond-simple-social-presented-at-salesforce )

* What’s more fascinating than “Likes” and “tweets” are the algorithms that drive social connections and interfaces: the social science, the analytics, what it all means for a company and the individual.

* Again, beyond the “simple social” of likes/tweets, consider the structured symbolism and cultural valence of an activity like the archetypal Tea Ceremony, as a social exercise that has history, context, utility, and meaning for the participants and observers. That’s truly “being social”.

* When evaluating a social situation (in real life or digital medium), consider these 5 questions about what’s impact the social-ness of the moment: Is it the person? Is it how the people are being social in that moment? Is it cross-cultural influences? Is it organizational constraints? (public vs private, govt agencies, etc.) Is there some issue/quality of the service or tool being used for the social encounter?

* In a social encounter, there are “social scripts” that we either intuitively follow or learned to follow. Based upon observation, interaction, interpretation, etc. Guides our reluctance or eagerness to engage with others.

* Beyond “trust”, consider the notion of “social comfort”— how are people comfortable with a) people, b) tools, and c) content towards enacting social relationships.

* Elements of Social Software: Wonderful diagram illustrating the relationship amongst social objects, personal identity and the various elements that go into a social product, from artifacts to actions to higher-order elements like conversations and collaborations

* Social perspectives: In any social interaction and software situation there are multiple perspectives at play that warrant attention – Personal – Collective – Community/Groups/Teams – Collaborations – Newbie – Service Owner – External Developer

* Social progressions: There’s an evolution of social interactions from small to large – Spark: something that is sent out, posted, liked, tweeted, to get attention going – Campfire: a small community, comfortable space, maybe temporary, then dies out – Bonfire: more conversation, interaction, followers/joiners, distributed and spreads – Torch: what to strive for, a controlled focus that guides, directs, easy for people to participants to “be around” and engage, dims and glows accordingly, etc.

* Gotta think about striking a balance of social objects/conversations vs social participants, what’s the ideal trajectory to keep people engaged, interacting, conversing/sharing, but not out of controls (burdensome) or ghost town (minimal participation)

* These thoughts help one develop and create a mature social tool that becomes a complex, sophisticated social system, not just the “simple social” of current social apps. Enriching the social fabric of an organization, etc.

Recently I got my hands on the Nokia Lumia 900 running Windows Phone with the Metro UI. Also, through internal channels at Citrix, I got a fairly deep one-day primer on designing for Metro via MSFT evangelist-led seminar and related team-based workshops afterwards. So, I’m certainly ramping up on my Metro IQ! Lots to discover, interpret, and apply. Those devs and designers unfamiliar should not naively presume Metro is simply “flat icons” and “big boxes”…there’s quite a well-thought out and clearly defined system for maximum visual and behavioral coherence across multiple screen and device formats (Small, medium, large). Big kudos to MSFT for pulling this off. According to the evangelist I heard, this is the first time in MSFT history to attempt and achieve such a broad-based UI coalescence across multiple business units and devices at nearly the same time. Wow!

The following links offer valuable info straight from MSFT on designing for Metro; definitely worth spending some time studying and re-visiting:

> Case Study of iPad to Win8 Metro

> UX Guidelines for Metro style apps

> UI Patterns for Metro style apps

> Metro design principles

 

And also slides/talks by Mike Kruzeniski, former Creative Director at MSFT who led the Metro design effort, explaining the rationale and inspirations–highly rec watching!

 

For now, I just wanted to share some of my own personal thoughts on Windows Metro, as I’ve experienced it thus far on a phone device (not yet tablet). I also have experienced the recent Metro variant for XBOX 360, which is qualitatively different being as a large-screen, 10 foot entertainment experience.

Metro is, as many others have noted publicly, a refreshingly bold vivid sharp crisply defined novel visual design system and language that successfully avoids yet another “me too” iteration of Apple’s iOS visual style (sorry Android and WebOS, although each has their own, er, charms as well ;-) Again, kudos for pushing a different angle on UI style. The typography is stunning and clear. The panoramic parallax imagery/motion is gorgeously compelling. The semantic zoom (for tablet only now) is slick and smart. The live tiles are interesting, supporting a glanceable UI.

So, after about 6 weeks of varying usage (along with my iPhone and iPad and Kindle Fire ;-), here’s my following observations:

– As Matt Gemmell noted, Metro embodies a strong tone of “information asceticism”: pure starkness of content. Some say content first is great, kill the chrome. Yet I feel it’s so content first that I’ve become lost inside an info graphic, losing my anchors for navigation, at times.

– The “live tiles” makes for a very visually compelling dashboard yet it’s not quite as useful as I’d thought. With iOS Notifications I know immediately the sender and content of emails. With Metro I only know that I got 4 new messages, but no idea of urgency, sender, context, content, etc. Perhaps something to improve?

– The Application list is one long vertically scrolling list of names…Maybe not the best effective or efficient use of the real estate? Why not app icons in a grid? Or rolodex of cards? Hmm.

– Is there too much typography?? I love the direction as said above, but there’s quite a bit to read, just a pinch more cognitive load and processing, I think ;-) Perhaps needs more finessing with the spacing and introducing more visual elements to break up the textuality of text. In some cases I wonder if the type is simply too large and dominant.

– Flat icons fit the overall ascetic aesthetic overall, but becomes somewhat cryptic at times. Of course you can tap the ellipse to get a gentle bump that shows the text labels underneath. But how can we avoid that?

– Love the quirky, whimsical little movements and animations on taps and holds and actions. Some may find them gratuitous (like the emails being sent out or photos sliding laterally across panoramic panes) but again, adds delightful, useful feedback. Also gives the info space a “feel” that’s reactive and alive. Not just static elements but “digitally tangible” in a sense. This makes the interface come alive truly.

– Overall flatness of the space and basic color scheme leaves much to be desired IMHO. As someone who likes texture and yes some skeumorphic elements gracefully done well, there’s a stark monotony to the space that leaves me feeling empty, wanting more…character? identity? soul? Hmm.

– The fluidity and speed overall is wonderful, just as immediately responsive, if not more than, iOS on iPhone. Definitely feels slick and powerful and useable. No issues there!

– Same problem as with Android…the damn physical hard key back button on the device! Argh. As an iOS user it’s very hard to remember that key as the perpetual “get me out” button. Keep wanting to tap out some gesture or tap a dedicated soft navi button.

These are just a few initial thoughts…will keep building on as I continue exploring Metro on other devices as well. But overall a positive fresh direction, with great potential. Eager to see how it evolves further, particularly for desktop and tablet contexts.