Words matter on Charles Reynolds-Talbot

Interaction design: Clearing the confusion

Mon, 10 Jul 2017 08:00:00 +0100

As a lead designer, it’s my goal is to help shape the user centred delivery of projects by raising the quality of interaction design—the work we do and the part we play in multidisciplinary teams.

I’ve noticed confusion about what interaction design is, what interaction designers do and when’s the right time to get them involved.

Design is a good idea

Design exists under many guises; policy design, organisation design, process design, infrastructure design, security design and so on.

Interaction Design (IxD) defines the structure and behavior of interactive systems. Interaction Designers strive to create meaningful relationships between people and the products and services that they use, from computers to mobile devices to appliances and beyond. —Interaction Design Association

It’s often perceived that user centred design costs more and delays delivery—but. Interaction designers want to deliver early and often. Delivery isn’t just about delivering working software, it’s about delivering measurable value. The sooner we can get something into the hands of real users, the sooner we can start learning at scale.

Research is invaluable when building empathy with users and understanding their needs and motivations. When we’re confident we’re building the right thing, we want data to help us realise what works and what doesn’t. We can then target future research more effectively and learn something new, iterate our solution, deliver, relearn, reiterate, repeat.

De-risking assumptions and gaining confidence you’re on track to deliver your outcomes are the returns you get when you invest in user centred design.

Knowing the right level of interaction design

A building call system, with buttons mixed of different colours and shapes

People tend to think of design in 1 of 2 ways: design is look and feel, or design is how it works.

I think design has 4 levels. The stage your project is at will dictate the level of design it needs.

Level 1. Design is solving problems.

First and foremost, interaction designers are problem solvers. They use design and mapping techniques to help teams define the problem and frame it in the right way.

Level 2. Design is how people behave.

Before diving into solutions, it’s important to understand how people behave and what they are trying to do. Interaction designers work closely with user researchers at this level to start building empathy for and better understand the needs of users. This might even redefine the problem.

Level 3. Design is how it works.

This is where interaction designers help create solutions that are easy to use and understand. They’ll prototype these solutions—often in code because interactions are made of code, not mock-ups—to test ideas with users and iterate based on feedback.

Level 4. Design is look and feel.

This is about making it beautiful, but it’s also about making it easy to navigate, increasing legibility and reducing cognitive load. It’s often mistaken as the only role interaction designers play.

Interface/visual design is important and many organisations prioritise form over function. Apple is very good at form. It’s important that interaction designers understand how form and function work together, but there’s less emphasis on interface/visual design. Instead, interaction designers should spend time solving new problems.

Together, these levels allow for user-centric design thinking that solves problems creatively and collaboratively.

Designers beware

Secret Level 5. Design is changing the world.

Designers want to feel like they’re doing something that matters. But not everything needs to be torn down and transformed wholesale. Sometimes you just need to solve the small problem in front of you, right now.

The client asks you to design a business card. You respond that the problem is really the client’s logo. The client asks you to design a logo. You say the problem is the entire identity system. The client asks you to design the identity. You say that the problem is the client’s business plan. And so forth. One or two steps later, you can claim whole industries and vast historical forces as your purview. The problem isn’t making something look pretty, you fool, it’s world hunger! —Michael Bierut

It’s important to remember—just making products and services that work better for the people who need to use them is still innovative, radical and disruptive.

Knowing the right level of interaction design to apply at the right time can help teams understand when to get interaction designers involved—and. Interaction designers should support teams with the right level of design at the right time to make things better for users.

Government doesn’t have needs

Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:00:00 +0100

We need to stop talking about the needs of government; it doesn’t have any.

People protesting to government

The words we use — often unconsciously — affect our mental model, the decisions we make, the way we design and the services we deliver.

I gave a lightning talk at a digital, data and technology event in government, to get people thinking about three things we’re doing wrong: First, stop saying customer, start saying user. Second, we’re not a business, we’re a government department. Third, government doesn’t have needs, people do.

The latter is arguably the most important. The more we talk about government needs, the more it becomes a thing. This will create a culture where people have a mental model of opposition — government needs versus the needs of people (users). If government have needs and users have needs, whose needs are more important? One will inevitably end up getting prioritised over the other, which is wrong and worrying — employees have a tendency to align with their employer first.

Holding onto the problem with both hands

I read an article by Ben Holliday, Head of User Experience at the Department for Work & Pensions, UK Government.

Prioritising one set of needs over the other doesn’t work. https://medium.com/@BenHolliday/the-needs-of-government-dff845b3d25d#—0-58.jfrvaypy2 — Ben Holliday

Ben’s post is great and goes a long way to articulate how we should be considering everything in order to deliver services that work for people, but he does so by referring to both sides as having needs. I feel this is wrong and fear it will continue to spread the problem — in time people will forget the message but the words “government needs” will stick with them, clouding their mental model and affecting how they deliver services for the worse.

Kate Tarling, Head of Service Design at the Home Office, UK Government, wrote a great response.

…talk about what it is that needs to happen to support or deliver a service, using neutral language. Such as checking eligibility or verifying identity — that doesn’t pre-suppose whether it’s a person or a computer doing that. And to talk about the underlying goals, the intent and outcomes for policy and the operational provider(s) of the service, rather than using a similar word ‘government needs’ to represent all of this. https://medium.com/@kateldn/great-post-ben-a3bd228cac07 — Kate Tarling

This is spot on — by using different words you no longer have that opposition, you can consider user needs alongside government goals/intent. Reframing the language we use in government is part of the solution.

There are better words to use

If we remember…

Government is a function of servicing people out of necessity — services are a means to meeting the needs of their users.

Functions and means can’t have needs.

People have needs.

If we start watching what we say we will start building the right kind of culture to design and deliver: services that meet the needs of users, services that truly matter, and services that make a difference.

This is important — it’s not just semantics. Semantics mean something.

Egoless design: Reviewing the right way

Tue, 06 Sep 2016 12:30:00 +0100

I was halfway through a design deep dive. I became uncomfortable. I was nervous. I was hot. I started breathing heavily. My heart started racing. But — I was not presenting. I was in the audience. An audience that was not doing it right. An audience that was criticising.

An illustration of a head in empty space

Nobody benefits from criticism.

Crit(ique) vs Crit(icism)

These two words are too similar in form to appreciate their difference in definition. The language we use is important as it forms our mental model and approach to a situation. This is why I’m going to use the softer word review, which works better.

Reviewing the right way

When we review design we should not make statements or pass comments, we should ask questions to learn more:

How might you…?
Why did you…?
What did the user…?

As designers it’s easy to try to think like the user, but we are not, and we can never hope to fully grasp the context of something in a short review. We should have trust in the designer(s) presenting. They have lived and breathed the problem. They have attended and observed user research sessions. They are the professionals that have been hired and entrusted to do the job the right way.

By asking questions, we prompt answers that will force designers to communicate the context and process in more detail. This helps them discover new ideas or alternative approaches they’d previously missed because they were too focussed. Self–captured comments will always be better acted upon.

It’s important to talk about what works well too. Don’t forget that this is a chance for both sides to learn something new.

Three’s company

With the best intentions, design reviews can still be challenging. Designer(s) can be anxious about presenting; worried that it is them or their ability that is being reviewed, rather than their work. To help ease this feeling of audience vs presenter(s), it can work well to have someone take up a third role of facilitator. A facilitator can help reviews by:

introducing the designer(s) presenting
clarifying what we’re reviewing and what we’re not — there’s no value in discussing things that can’t be changed right now, especially if there is a specific problem area the designer(s) want feedback on.
asking the audience for questions
taking notes to help prompt the designer(s) later
confirming next steps

No egos

There are no bonus points for egos. We’re all working towards the same goal — we all want to solve the problem collaboratively. In the beginning; it doesn’t matter what it looks like, or how it feels — it matters how it works; how people understand it and how people interact with it.

Ask questions. Listen. Learn. Repeat.

Setting an open standard for job postings

Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:23:40 +0100

Job-seekers and employers need a better experience

Update 29 Feb 2016: Edited to make a clearer distinction between the goal of this open standard and the role of an existing schema.

I’m currently working as a designer with a team looking at ways to improve how we help job-seekers find work and employers fill vacancies in their local job markets.

Understanding employer needsby Charles Reynolds-Talbot

Matching the right candidate to the right job is the intended goal of recruitment, but this is often hindered early on by poor quality job adverts.

Looking for the right job can be an emotional and labour-intensive task. Job-seekers are often faced with adverts containing too little information about the role, responsibilities, work patterns, rates of pay and even location. This causes them to apply for unsuitable jobs, and potentially avoid suitable ones altogether.

Employers, in turn, suffer from the increased cost of spending too much time sifting unsuitable applications, and often run the risk of recruiting the wrong candidate. Unhappy employees are less productive and are likely to leave soon after starting, which increases the need to re-recruit.

Citizens Advice agree — job adverts in today’s market are simply failing job-seekers and employers.

High-level research findings by Citizens Advice

The majority of digital job adverts today are skeuomorphs of their real-word counterparts — newspaper adverts and “cards in the window” — typically static blocks of text in a variety of formats with no agreed standard for information or layout.

When posting a job, most recruitment websites ask for the job title, a rough location and offer a free-format textarea.

Employers don’t know what information to include, in what format.

Job-seekers struggle to easily see the information in the “wall of text” that’s important to them.

Job description with lots of information about the company but no details about the role by Citizens Advice

This pattern has been imitated by other job websites looking for their share of the market — most of whom are measured on generating revenue from mass advertising, not on getting people into suitable work.

Government has a responsibility to support people into sustainable employment, so that they are financially dependent, and less reliant on benefits.

I propose government adopts and encourages the use of an open source minimum standard for all job postings in the UK.

This open standard won’t just cover the rules and recommendations (which most job sites fall short of), but will be based on the needs of its users. It will ensure job-seekers have the key information they need to make an informed decision whether they’re suitable for a role, or a role is suitable for them.

The recommended journey of a job advert in an employer/agency interaction by Citizens Advice

It’s my assumption that this will benefit employers — through better quality applications and staff retention. This will also benefit recruitment websites — through repeat business.

User needs

These insights are not just from the Citizens Advice reports. The team I am working with have spoken to over 100 job-seekers across the country, about the wider challenges they face when looking for work. We’ve discovered that users need to know:

who the end employer is so they can research them before applying
what their responsibilities will be so they can assess whether they are capable/suitable
the specific location of the job so they know they can get to and from the job in a time and manner that fits with their lifestyle
the work pattern so they know it doesn’t clash with any existing commitments, e.g. childcare, current part-time work
the minimum rate of pay so they can determine whether they can afford to pay their mortgage/rent, bills etc.

Whilst extensive 1:1 qualitative research has been conducted with job-seekers, we have only spoken to a handful of employers. Until further validated, employer needs are just best assumptions at this time, which is OK.

Solving the problem

I am kickstarting an open source standard for what a job posting should look like — structure, not style — based on user needs. This is intended to be used as a foundation to encourage an iterative approach to the design and content of job postings — available for everyone to use.

Example of a structured job postingby Charles Reynolds-Talbot

The US have done something similar to aid the searching of jobs from veteran-commuted employers, which has been supported by a shared vocabulary on schema.org.

Update 29 Feb 2016: Whilst I fully support the use of this schema, it is not enough to simply mark up existing web pages as structured data if the right information is not there to begin with. We need a recommended mininum standard of information that all job postings should include to make job-seekers and employers lives better.

Initially, I recommend government adopts this standard on its public sector job sites: https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk; https://www.jobs.nhs.uk; https://jobsearch.direct.gov.uk.

They should then work closely with employers who have their own careers website (banks, supermarkets, hotels, etc) to encourage its use, before breaking down the walls on the large recruitment websites.

Setting a standard for job adverts won’t be an instant cure all for the vagaries of the job market, but it will help us find the gaps where user needs aren’t being met. And once we’ve identified the problems, building on that same structure will mean we can solve them in new and exciting ways: time to travel, transferable skill matching, better search algorithms — the possibilities become endless.

I invite everyone to start using, challenging and contributing to this standard on GitHub.