As more and more companies adopt a user-focused approach, those who are new to the field often interchange terms that sound alike, but are really different. One might argue that it’s just a matter of semantics, but when talking with a user-experience professional, semantics can mean a great deal.

Here’s a quick guide to make sure you are using the right terminology:

Usability
Often times people will say we are working on a “usability project”. This could mean a wide variety of things. Is it a usability test? Is it a website re-design focusing on improved usability? Is it a review of an existing site to identify usability issues? “Usability” has become a catch-all phrase, but it simply refers to how “usable” a function, feature, or entire website is.

User Experience
Now the user “experience” of a website or product is a much more holistic view of things. It’s much more than how easy something is to operate. When you “experience” something you are taking in multiple stimuli, all of which impact the initial and final impression of a user.

This honeycomb diagram probably explains it best. Originally developed by Peter Morville of Semantic Studios, it provides an overview of the different facets of a user-experience.

Useful - Ensuring the solutions and features help users achieve their objectives.

Usable - How intuitive the interaction is based on proven theories and design principles (and validated through testing).

Desirable - The website’s balance between efficiency and aesthetics - how well the site utilizes the power of perception, image, identity, branding, and other elements.

Findable - Designing navigation, content, and page layouts so users can easily find what they need and be confident that they’re on the right path.

Accessible - Ensuring that everyone (including those with disabilities) can access the features without problems.

Credible - Designing elements that will influence whether users trust and believe what the site tells them.

Valuable - Ensuring that what we are creating delivers value to the user.

When you examine the many facets involved in creating a good user-experience, you can easily see that it’s not just about usability. So, if you decide to launch into a re-design because you are trying to fix “usability problems”, take a step back for a holistic view of things. There may be other areas that, if you focus on them, can result in not just improved usability, but a dramatically better user-experience.

We all know that the current generation of children are going to have a different view of the world and the role of technology in our lives. My kids already want me to “rewind” the radio or anything not hooked up to a TiVo.

Now enter the newest phenomenon - part Gigapet, part Beanie Babies, part Second Life. They are called Webkinz and they are taking over the world.

What does Webkinz have to do with user experience and online marketing?

Unlike other stuffed animals, Webkinz come with a secret code that you enter online to unlock “a world where you care for your virtual pet, answer trivia, earn KinzCash, and play the best kids games on the net!” And not only does it have it’s own currency system like Second Life, but it has a virtual world where kids can interact with each other.

I think Webkinz is interesting for various reasons. It’s not just a well masterminded plan to suck parents wallets’ dry with another collectable; the site itself is addicting for both kids and parents (my wife tries to earn KinzCash in order to buy more stuff for “Sparkles” room)

While there are lots of great marketing ideas that are pushing the growth of Webkinz, the point of this post is that these types of websites are changing the way even the youngest of kids expect to interact online. My daughter is almost 6 and is already part of an online community! She and my son (4) have also been using websites like Noggin.com and Playhouse Disney for the last couple of years. Not only do these sites have games, but they have tons of video content and rich interactivity.

These types of sites are changing the way the next generation will expect to interact with the web. I fully expect that in a couple years we are going to have a good laugh when they say “Daddy, what’s a web page?”

I’d like to use this post to start a discussion about the future of the web.  While Web 2.0 is a label given to the evolution of the online medium, most of the ideas often associated with that label really aren’t new. 

I spoke about this at a recent event - how Web 2.0 is more about a collection of principles than a bunch of features.  I also mentioned that if the web was to continue to evolve, we needed to stop thinking about ideas in terms of “features” and more about creatively addressing user needs and business challenges with original thought - thoughts around architecting interactive strategies aligned with how users interact and consume information on the web today.

I’ve been in the industry a little over 8 years now, and it seems that most of the ideas that have been generated over the last few years are not dramatically new.  During the dot-com days, and its subsequent aftermath, a lot of great ideas were built up due to the newness and excitement around the medium.  But like a kink in a water hose, technology limitations prevented those ideas from flowing and there was a corporate thumb over the nozzle, blocking the ideas from getting through.  Over the last couple of years, the kink has loosened and budgets are shifting toward interactive.  As a result, many of the ideas being implemented today are ones that were fighting for existence a few years ago.

My point?  I believe this new flow of old ideas has caused the stagnation of original thought.  We got so excited that we finally pushed through an idea we’ve been passionate about that our focus shifted away from coming up with new ones.  Now don’t get me wrong.  I’m not saying there aren’t any new ideas today.  The Web 2.0 movement has caused people to start the ideation process again. But, for the most part, these ideas are being conceived by a small percentage of people.

The larger percentage of ideas being generated by companies and agencies today are either jumping on a fad bandwagon, recycled ideas from years past or the replication of a feature already being used by their competitors or the latest cool site. Unfortunately, this often results in the misapplication of the idea - either not aligned with user needs, the business objective or both.

Maybe it has always been this way and always will, but I do think the web is at a growth stage where the time is right for a surge of new ideas.

So now what?  How do we shape the future of the web without staying attached to the past?  I’ve got a few ideas, but I want to see what you think.  Discuss…

Our very own Wade Forst moderated this month’s Atlanta Interactive Marketing Association (AiMA) last night, titled Branding 2.0: The New Online Community. The event had an amazing turnout of around 200 people.

Wade was able to pull two speakers from heavy-hitting consumer brands; Tom Daly with Coca-Cola’s Global Interactive Marketing and Michael Friedman, who is in charge of Strategy and Planning for Darden Restaurant’s interactive marketing.

The topic of Web 2.0 is a popular one. Last night’s event touched on some very interesting ways consumers are interacting with brands online.  For those of you not able to attend the event, here are some of the key take-aways:

• Consumers will be part of the brand with or without you. It’s your job to leverage and enable the consumer’s interaction - without it feeling unauthentic (i.e. Dove’s video advertisement on YouTube).
• Support what customers are doing and do not dictate their actions. To work you have to let them interact freely with your brand.
• Seeding can be risky because people can be vocal about authenticity.
• You can’t buy viral.  Something will either catch on or it won’t. Forcing it won’t appear natural and consumers will be turned off.
• Fish where the fish are - don’t try to get them to swim in your pool first.
• It’s not just about sending people to your website any more.  Interaction with your brand happens within multiple, fragmented mediums.
• Companies have less and less control over brand today. You must relinquish full control and seek to guide and influence it.
• There are different kinds of KPIs for user generated content. It’s not all about driving traffic; there is a reinvigoration of the importance of brand lift online. 

My wife was perusing Art.com the other day looking to fill the walls of my 9-month old baby’s room.  As I was looking over her shoulder, I couldn’t help but notice how well certain aspects of their interface were designed from a usability perspective.  But then I thought…is it that the page is “usable” or is it “persuasive”?

It’s both really.  But the thing that caught my eye the most was how simple the visual layer was and how it created a perception of usability.  Are there only a few items on the page that make it simple?  NO.  And that is the beauty of it.  In a recent blog post, I talked about the Misconception of Clutter and this site does a great job of illustrating my point.  There are actually a lot of items on each page.  But Art.com has done a great job of stripping away fancy creative elements that don’t serve a purpose and uses the power of visual design to create not just a simple, usable page; but one that subtly persuades users to follow a path towards making a purchase.

They use lots of white and very light grey tones as the base color for the site.  What this does is allow the color they use for their primary calls to action to really pop.  It really makes the eye focus on the primary action, which is Add To Cart.  There is something about that shiny orange button that creates a gravitational pull towards clicking it.  Something about it brings me back to the old dot-com days where anything that looked interesting, made me want to click it just to see what would happen. But the reason why the button brings attention to itself is not just the shiny gradient color, but the absence of color around it.

My point with all of this is that I think the role of the creative designer is often underutilized when it comes to website design.  Everyone wants the site to look good and be consistent with the brand, but the creative designer plays a much more important role in User Experience design.  How information and interaction elements are presented visually are critical in helping the user clearly understand them, as well as persuade them into taking the action we want them to take.  Designers aren’t there just to make things look pretty…although if it’s pretty enough, it might make me want to click it.

The other day, I finally did something I’ve wanted to do for a while now.  I bought The Tipping Point by Malcom Gladwell.  I had first read his book, Blink, which talks about the power of the human subconscious and I had heard The Tipping Point was one of those “must reads”.  So I read it.  Well, I didn’t actually read it, but I listened to the book on CD. 

It was pretty interesting.   If you haven’t read it, the basic premise is that there are a few key factors that cause all epidemics in the world.  These epidemics can be viral diseases, the explosion of a popular product or even the adoption of a new technology.  The factors he talks about all tend to work together, but he explains that epidemics all tend to start with a collection of little things that have a compounding effect and collectively make a big difference.  Eventually when an epidemic spreads, there is a “tipping point” in which the small movement becomes a large one, seemingly overnight.

In my opinion, usability issues can have this same progression. One issue is no big deal; a second issue adds to that. But as the number of issues a user encounters increases, the rate in which they get frustrated and leave grows exponentially.  As a business, we may not put much stock in each individual issue because, isolated, it is “not that big of a deal”.  Often, however, it’s not that one issue causes a user to have usability problems.  It’s the compounding effect of small issues that builds and burns a negative impression in the user’s mind. 

As these issues compound, they eventually come to their own “tipping point”, when a user will decide that the cognitive effort involved in utilizing your website or product is too great to provide a positive return on their time and mental investment.  This tipping point can occur early in a session (i.e. if someone’s patience level is already low) or mid-way through.  They may even complete a transaction with you this time, but when contemplating a return to your site, they will recall that negative association and chose an alternative.

So the next time you’re thinking of dismissing a simple usability fix because you don’t think it’s a big deal, you may want to consider the full impact it can have.

I’m speechless.

I honestly don’t know where to begin. I’m afraid I might get carpal tunnel syndrome from typing up all the usability issues on this website.

http://www.levi.com.sg/copper/index.html

Enjoy.  Comments are more than welcome.  I’d love to start a dialogue about this.

P.S. No offense is meant to the Levi’s brand or the team who built it, but a lively discussion on the blend between creativity and usability is certainly warranted.

So we were brainstorming for a new client the other day, and some of the ideas that came up revolved around asking for user feedback.  One idea was allowing users to vote on new features and another was an ongoing customer feedback poll for regularly changing topics.  Not a boring, generic poll, but something that really made users feel like they were contributing to the growth and success of the company by providing their input.  

We feel these types of ideas are powerful because they tap into the concept of having buy-in.  When you contribute to the success of something, you take pride and are more motivated and loyal.  You now have a vested interest.

This is the same concept as gaining employee buy-in to company goals by having them contribute their own thoughts and opinions.  If an employee feels like they are “part” of the company instead of just doing a job, they are more likely to stay and work hard.

So this got me thinking…why is the concept of “buy-in” or “vested interest” so powerful?  What are the psychological principles driving this phenomena?  I took one of my team members (and avid Spunlogic blogger), Melissa Read, to lunch to explore this more.  I knew Melissa would be good to talk to because we are working on some really cool initiatives right now that involve utilizing time-tested psychological concepts and applying them online.  We brainstormed a little bit and this is what we initially came up with (at least enough for a blog post to start the discussion):

Individualism – There is a strong human need, especially with Americans, to stand out in a crowd and be seen as an individual.  By giving an opportunity to be heard and voice their opinion, you are giving them an outlet to express their unique and personal perspective.  And by providing this outlet to express their individualism, they now have a positive association and a deeper connection with you.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: Self-Esteem – By providing input, the company makes them feel like their opinion matters and that they are worth something to you.  This makes them feel good and boosts their self-esteem.  This also creates a positive emotional association with your website and your company.

Classical Conditioning – Now that they have a positive association with your company, when they have future interactions with the company they are going to still have this positive association (even if they don’t know why).  The more positive interactions you have, the more this strengthens this association.

Internal Locus of Control – By providing input, they have a perception of being in control and they feel like they are shaping the future of their own experiences.  This “new and improved” experience is coming in the future and they want to stick around to have it.  If you deliver on their wishes, you will further solidify this relationship and create a solid bond.

These types of psychological principles are at the core of user behavior and we are just scratching the surface of their applications online. 

The other night, my wife was inquiring about making an appointment somewhere and went online to find a location. I’m being vague about what type of appointment this is because I don’t want to call out the specific website that she encountered, because it had an incredibly horrid usability error. And when I say horrid, I mean it was so bad that it actually prevented a conversion from occurring. Was it a technical error? One would think so, but the error message it gave made it seem intentional.

I took a slice of a screen shot so you could see the error first hand. Check it out…

“Please check spelling of your last name” ????

What? Are you serious? Now this isn’t a login page where it’s possible she was entering an incorrect user name. This is the page you get to after clicking through from a PAID search ad on Google. Above the form it provides an offer and says “Register Now for a Free Consultation”. Clearly the purpose of this website and form is to convert visitors into customers. If this was a technical error, wouldn’t it have said something different like, “Please make sure all fields are completed”? Plus, how are they to know if we had spelled our last name incorrectly or not? Our last name could be Kashingtoniktoriley. Would that be spelled wrong? Oh, okay. Maybe they don’t think we spelled it wrong. So what do they want us to “check the spelling” for? It’s not like we are even using illegal characters. Even if we were, the error message doesn’t say that. It just asks us to “check” it.

Okay, rant over. But this is just a really funny case where had someone checked the site, not to optimize the usability, but at least make sure it was simply usable, the business could be cashing in on many more conversions.

Okay, now let me preface this entry by saying that I am usually a HUGE skeptic when it comes to new, cool fads on the web. And for the most part, it has taken me a while to accept that aspects of Second Life will hold lasting value to the business world.

What I do believe will happen is that, just like the internet in the early 2000’s, the Second Life bubble will burst. But what typically happens after these big pops, is that useful and practical ideas will remain; and I think that there are elements of a concept I recently discovered that could have some legs.

For the movie, Smokin Aces, they created a Second Life game that allows you to become an assassin. By going to a hotel, picking up a hit list and weapon, you are on your way to being a trained killer. You can get more details at www.smokinaces.net/secondlife

Why do I think this is interesting? The concept of living out a movie fantasy and truly becoming an alter ego that you could never become in real life, such as being an assassin, is very powerful. It allows people to play out their deviant side that is normally suppressed in real life.

This is different than a normal video game or advergame in that the targets are not a computer generated foe. They are in essence “real people,” and the act of killing someone is much more criminal, just without the consequences of real life.

What does this mean for the business world?

Advergames and “guerilla” branding efforts can be taken to a whole new dimension. In most current advergames, you are playing a character and making that character do something, but it’s not you. In Second Life (or any other virtual world), you are YOU…or at least some projection of the inner you. And that means that YOU are fully immersed in a brand experience. It is a much deeper level of participation and connection with a brand. And isn’t that the whole point of many of these ultra-creative online branding efforts?

So, okay. I’m not quite ready to jump on the Second Life bandwagon, but my eyes have been opened to the possibilities.